2003
DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200310000-00005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Outcomes After Treatment of High-Energy Tibial Plafond Fractures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

10
157
0
13

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 246 publications
(180 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
10
157
0
13
Order By: Relevance
“…For the external fixation group, no two-staged protocol was undertaken in this study and external fixation was always a definitive device. Similar to many other authors, we found that definitive external fixation provided more malunion, stiffness or pain than ORIF [6,8,10]. Thus, we believe that external fixation should be preferentially used in two-staged protocols as a temporary device before ORIF or limited internal fixation [1,5].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For the external fixation group, no two-staged protocol was undertaken in this study and external fixation was always a definitive device. Similar to many other authors, we found that definitive external fixation provided more malunion, stiffness or pain than ORIF [6,8,10]. Thus, we believe that external fixation should be preferentially used in two-staged protocols as a temporary device before ORIF or limited internal fixation [1,5].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…All of these techniques have advantages and disadvantages and there is no consensus concerning the management of these fractures [2,10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may be partially explained by the high-energy nature required to produce a comminuted injury. 29 Other surgical factors, such as possible increased time for surgical reconstruction of increasingly complex osseous and soft tissue injury may contribute. The statistically significant difference in the average number of days from injury to ORIF, 20.9 ± 15.5 days in the infected versus 13.6 ± 12.7 days in the non-infected (p ¼ .01), represents the proper treatment allocation and adequate decision making process of orthopaedic surgeons with the more severe injuries requiring a higher time interval for surrounding soft tissue optimization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Treatment of these fractures, both operative and non-operative, can have high complication rates, reportedly between 27% and 54% [5,13,14,2,27]; high rates of revision surgery, reportedly from 10% to 23% [5,10,12]; and significant residual dysfunction [1,12,18]. Some of these problems are almost certainly related to damage to the overlying articular cartilage, which inevitably sustains additional injuries during the initial event.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%