Minimally invasive osteosynthesis technique in the treatment of transverse patellar fractures in the elderly

Comparison of a minimally invasive osteosynthesis technique with conventional open surgery for transverse patellar fractures

PURPOSE

The study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of a new minimally invasive osteosynthesis technique with those of conventional open surgery for transverse patellar fractures.

METHODS

It was a retrospective study. Adult patients with closed transverse patellar fracture were included, and with open comminuted patellar fracture were excluded. These patients were divided into minimally invasive osteosynthesis technique (MIOT) group and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) group. Surgical time, frequency of intraoperative fluoroscopy, visual analogue scale score, flexion, extension, Lysholm knee score, infection, malreduction, implant migration and implant irritation in two groups were recorded and compared. Statistical analysis was performed by the SPSS software package (version 19). A p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients with transverse patellar fractures enrolled in this study, the minimally invasive technique was performed in 27 cases, and open reduction was performed in 28 cases. The surgical time in the ORIF group was shorter than that in the MIOT group (p = 0.033). The visual analogue scale scores in the MIOT group were significantly lower than those in the ORIF group only in the first month after surgery (p = 0.015). Flexion was restored faster in the MIOT group than that in the ORIF group at one month (p = 0.001) and three months (p = 0.015). Extension was recovered faster in the MIOT group than that in the ORIF group at one month (p = 0.031) and three months (p = 0.023). The recorded Lysholm knee scores in the MIOT group were always greater than those in the ORIF group. Complications, such as infection, malreduction, implant migration, and implant irritation, occurred more frequently in the ORIF group.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the ORIF group, the MIOT group reduced postoperative pain and had less complications and better exercise rehabilitation. Although it requires a long operation time, MIOT may be a wise choice for transverse patellar fractures.

A minimally invasive bipolar surgical approach for the treatment of patellar fracture using the tension-band wiring technique

Objective

Minimally invasive surgical techniques are becoming increasingly popular for the treatment of traumatic injuries. Although some minimally invasive techniques in the management of patellar fractures have been reported, the limited exposure in such methods may cause technical difficulties during surgery and restrict their wide application. In this context, this study aims to introduce a bipolar incision and assess the clinical outcomes of patellar fractures treated via this type of incision.

Materials and methods

Patients who suffered patellar fractures and who received surgical treatment via bipolar incision between 2018 and 2020 in our hospital were retrospectively reviewed and included in this study. The clinical and radiological records of all patients were reviewed. A classification of the fractures was done and intraoperative parameters, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, knee range of motion, and the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score of the patients were evaluated and summarized.

Results

The study included 19 patients who met the inclusion criteria. All patellar fractures were operated through the minimally invasive bipolar surgical approach. The mean time of operation was 69.0 ± 8.5 min. The mean time to union was 12.8 ± 2.1 weeks. The average total knee range of motion was 131.8 ± 4.4°, and the average HSS score was 97.1 ± 2.6 at 1-year post-operation. No surgical-related complications were observed.

Conclusions

The knee functional outcomes were favorable when patellar fractures were treated through the minimally invasive bipolar incision method. This bipolar surgical approach was found to be a feasible method for treating patellar fractures.

Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous fixation and open reduction internal fixation for patella fractures: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) has long been the conventional procedure for managing displaced patella fracture. This surgical approach has certain drawbacks, which might affect clinical outcomes and patient prognosis. Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation (MIPF) was proposed to overcome these disadvantages. Few in-depth investigations have been performed to determine the superiority of MIPF over ORIF. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of MIPF and ORIF for patella fractures.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for relevant studies from November 26 to December 17, 2020. Non-English publications and pediatric orthopedic articles were excluded. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager, version 5.4, with mean differences (MDs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using a random effects model. The primary outcomes were the pain score, knee range of motion, and joint functionality. The secondary outcomes were the surgical time, complications, and implant removal rate.

RESULTS

Six articles with a total of 304 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that patients with MIPF had a significantly reduced pain score (MD = - 1.30, 95% CI = - 1.77 to -0.82; p < 0.00001) and increased knee extension angles (MD = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.18 to 1.25; p = 0.009) at 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, knee flexion angles (MD = 8.96, 95% CI = 5.81 to 12.1; p < 0.00001) and joint functionality (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.86; p = 0.001) had statistically improved at 2 years. However, no difference was observed between MIPF and ORIF with regard to the surgical time. The risk of complications (OR = 0.10, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.18; p < 0.00001) and implant removal rate (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.07 to 0.57; p = 0.003) were significantly lower with MIPF than with ORIF.

CONCLUSIONS

MIPF is more favorable than ORIF in terms of the pain score, knee range of motion, joint functionality, complications, and implant removal rate. Thus, it can be adopted as an alternative to ORIF.