The Floating Knee Injuries: Does it Need a New Classification System?

Abstract

Background: This study aims to determine the differences between the clinical and radiological results of patients based on Karlstrom–Olerud Scoring System who cannot be included in any classification for floating knee injuries and to seek an answer to the question of whether a new classification is needed. Material and Methods: Seventy patients with floating knee injuries treated in our clinic were retrospectively analyzed between 2008 and 2019 in the study. The results of fractures that classifiable and unclassifiable according to the Fraser, Blake and McBryde classifications were statistically compared based on the Karlstrom–Olerud criteria. Results: Seventy patients, 64 males and 6 females, participated in the study. The mean age of our patients was 32.3 ± 12.55 (18–68) years. The mean follow-up period of the patients was 30.26 ± 18.19 months (11–60 months). The results of the fractures that could not be classified according to the Blake and McBryde classification were statistically poorer than the results of those that could be classified according to the criteria (p = 0.041). The results of the fractures that could not be classified according to the Fraser classification were statistically poorer than the results of those that could be classified according to the criteria defined by Karlstrom and Olerud (p = 0.010). Conclusion: We observed that floating knee injuries that we could and could not classify led to different clinical results. In conclusion, we think that there is a need for a new floating knee classification that includes segmental fractures, patellar fractures and open fractures.