Tibial plateau fractures: Compared outcomes between ARIF and ORIF

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare arthroscopic assisted reduction internal fixation (ARIF) treatment with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) treatment in patients with tibial plateau fractures. We studied 100 patients with tibial plateau fractures (54 men and 46 women) examined by X-rays and CT scans, divided into 2 groups. Group A with associated meniscus tear was treated by ARIF technique, while in group B ORIF technique was used. The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 116 months. The patients were evaluated both clinically and radiologically according to the Rasmussen and HSS (The Hospital for Special Surgery knee-rating) scores. In group A, the average Rasmussen clinical score is 27.62 ± 2.60 (range, 19-30), while in group B is 26.81 ± 2.65 (range, 21-30). HSS score in group A was 76.36 ± 14.19 (range, 38-91) as the average clinical result, while in group B was 73.12 ± 14.55 (range, 45-91). According to Rasmussen radiological results, the average score for group A was 16.56 ± 2.66 (range, 8-18), while in group B was 15.88 ± 2.71 (range, 10-18). Sixty-nine of 100 patients in our study had associated intra-articular lesions. We had 5 early complications and 36 late complications. The study suggests that there are no differences between ARIF and ORIF treatment in Schatzker type I fractures. ARIF technique may increase the clinical outcome in Schatzker type II-III-IV fractures. In Schatzker type V and VI fractures, ARIF and ORIF techniques have both poor medium- and long-term results but ARIF treatment, when indicated, is the best choice for the lower rate of infections. © 2012 The Author(s).