[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Figure 1.
Flowchart of the Selection of Included Studies
Flowchart of the Selection of Included Studies
Figure 2.
Funnel Plot of Degree of Heterogeneity Within Selected Studies
Funnel Plot of Degree of Heterogeneity Within Selected Studies

Noticeable asymmetry can be attributed to the number of retrospective studies used.

Figure 3.
Subset Analyses of Risk Factors Associated With Deep Surgical Site Infection (SSI)
Subset Analyses of Risk Factors Associated With Deep Surgical Site Infection (SSI)

Size of boxes indicates proportional weight of each trial. Diamonds indicate point estimates and 95% CIs of the combined result.

Table 1.  
Microbiology Culture Results by Study
Microbiology Culture Results by Study
Table 2.  
Risk Factor Subset Analysis
Risk Factor Subset Analysis
1.
Liu  F, Tao  R, Cao  Y,  et al.  The role of LISS (less invasive stabilisation system) in the treatment of peri-knee fractures.  Injury. 2009;40(11):1187-1194. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2009.03.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Morris  BJ, Unger  RZ, Archer  KR, Mathis  SL, Perdue  AM, Obremskey  WT.  Risk factors of infection after ORIF of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27(9):e196-e200. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e318284704ePubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Rodriguez  EK, Boulton  C, Weaver  MJ,  et al.  Predictive factors of distal femoral fracture nonunion after lateral locked plating: a retrospective multicenter case-control study of 283 fractures.  Injury. 2014;45(3):554-559. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2013.10.042PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Kadar  A, Sherman  H, Glazer  Y, Katz  E, Steinberg  EL.  Predictors for nonunion, reoperation and infection after surgical fixation of patellar fracture.  J Orthop Sci. 2015;20(1):168-173. doi:10.1007/s00776-014-0658-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Hoshino  CM, Tran  W, Tiberi  JV,  et al.  Complications following tension-band fixation of patellar fractures with cannulated screws compared with Kirschner wires.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(7):653-659. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01549PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
LeBrun  CT, Langford  JR, Sagi  HC.  Functional outcomes after operatively treated patella fractures.  J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(7):422-426. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e318228c1a1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Petrie  J, Sassoon  A, Langford  J.  Complications of patellar fracture repair: treatment and results.  J Knee Surg. 2013;26(5):309-312. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1353990PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Henkelmann  R, Frosch  K-H, Glaab  R,  et al; Committee TRAUMA of the AGA-Society for Arthroscopy and Joint Surgery.  Infection following fractures of the proximal tibia: a systematic review of incidence and outcome.  BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):481. doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1847-zPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Heppert  V, Rheinwalt  K, Winkler  H, Wentzensen  A.  Infection of the proximal tibia after fractures: an avoidable complication.  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 1997;7(3):195-198. doi:10.1007/BF00579288Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Basques  BA, Webb  ML, Bohl  DD, Golinvaux  NS, Grauer  JN.  Adverse events, length of stay, and readmission after surgery for tibial plateau fractures.  J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(3):e121-e126. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000231PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Kirkland  KB, Briggs  JP, Trivette  SL, Wilkinson  WE, Sexton  DJ.  The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(11):725-730. doi:10.1086/501572PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Saleeb  H, Tosounidis  T, Papakostidis  C, Giannoudis  PV.  Incidence of deep infection, union and malunion for open diaphyseal femoral shaft fractures treated with IM nailing: a systematic review.  Surgeon. 2018;(August):S1479-666X(18)30095-7. doi:10.1016/j.surge.2018.08.003PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Coleman  BD, Khan  KM, Maffulli  N.  Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies.  Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000;10(1):2-11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Steinberg  EL, Elis  J, Steinberg  Y, Salai  M, Ben-Tov  T.  A double-plating approach to distal femur fracture: a clinical study.  Injury. 2017;48(10):2260-2265. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.07.025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society.  Are locking constructs in distal femoral fractures always best: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the less invasive stabilization system with the minimally invasive dynamic condylar screw system.  J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(1):e1-e6. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000450PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Padha  K, Singh  S, Ghani  A, Dang  H.  Distal femur fractures and its treatment with distal femur locking plate.  JK Science. 2016;18(2):76-80.Google Scholar
17.
Virk  JS, Garg  SK, Gupta  P, Jangira  V, Singh  J, Rana  S.  Distal femur locking plate: the answer to all distal femoral fractures.  J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(10):RC01-RC05.PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Gill  S, Mittal  A, Raj  M, Singh  P, Singh  J, Kumar  S.  Extra articular supracondylar femur fractures managed with locked distal femoral plate or supracondylar nailing: a comparative outcome study.  J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(5):RC19-RC23. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2017/25062.9936PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Kim  J-W, Oh  C-W, Kyung  H-S, Min  W-K, Yoon  S-H.  Factors affecting the results of distal femoral fractures treated by retrograde intramedullary nailing.  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2009;23(11):1311-1315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Kolb  W, Guhlmann  H, Windisch  C, Marx  F, Kolb  K, Koller  H.  Fixation of distal femoral fractures with the less invasive stabilization system: a minimally invasive treatment with locked fixed-angle screws.  J Trauma. 2008;65(6):1425-1434. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e318166d24aPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Rademakers  MV, Kerkhoffs  GMMJ, Sierevelt  IN, Raaymakers  ELFB, Marti  RK.  Intra-articular fractures of the distal femur: a long-term follow-up study of surgically treated patients.  J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(4):213-219. doi:10.1097/00005131-200404000-00004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Southeast Fracture Consortium.  LCP Versus LISS in the treatment of open and closed distal femur fractures: does it make a difference?  J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(6):e212-e216. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000507PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Handolin  L, Pajarinen  J, Lindahl  J, Hirvensalo  E.  Retrograde intramedullary nailing in distal femoral fractures: results in a series of 46 consecutive operations.  Injury. 2004;35(5):517-522. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(03)00191-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Gao  K, Gao  W, Huang  J,  et al.  Retrograde nailing versus locked plating of extra-articular distal femoral fractures: comparison of 36 cases.  Med Princ Pract. 2013;22(2):161-166. doi:10.1159/000342664PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Schandelmaier  P, Krettek  C, Miclau  T, Stephan  C, Könemann  B, Tscherne  H.  Stabilization of distal femoral fractures using the LISS.  Tech Orthop. 1999;14(3):230-246. doi:10.1097/00013611-199909000-00009Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Kayali  C, Agus  H, Turgut  A.  Successful results of minimally invasive surgery for comminuted supracondylar femoral fractures with LISS: comparative study of multiply injured and isolated femoral fractures.  J Orthop Sci. 2007;12(5):458-465. doi:10.1007/s00776-007-1156-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Kolb  K, Grützner  P, Koller  H, Windisch  C, Marx  F, Kolb  W.  The condylar plate for treatment of distal femoral fractures: a long-term follow-up study.  Injury. 2009;40(4):440-448. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2008.08.046PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Kregor  PJ, Stannard  JA, Zlowodzki  M, Cole  PA.  Treatment of distal femur fractures using the less invasive stabilization system: surgical experience and early clinical results in 103 fractures.  J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(8):509-520. doi:10.1097/00005131-200409000-00006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Schütz  M, Müller  M, Regazzoni  P,  et al.  Use of the less invasive stabilization system (LISS) in patients with distal femoral (AO33) fractures: a prospective multicenter study.  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005;125(2):102-108. doi:10.1007/s00402-004-0779-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Ran  T, Hua  X, Zhenyu  Z,  et al.  Floating knee: a modified Fraser’s classification and the results of a series of 28 cases.  Injury. 2013;44(8):1033-1042. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2012.12.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Parekh  AA, Smith  WR, Silva  S,  et al.  Treatment of distal femur and proximal tibia fractures with external fixation followed by planned conversion to internal fixation.  J Trauma. 2008;64(3):736-739. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e31804d492bPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Kadar  A, Sherman  H, Drexler  M, Katz  E, Steinberg  EL.  Anchor suture fixation of distal pole fractures of patella: twenty seven cases and comparison to partial patellectomy.  Int Orthop. 2016;40(1):149-154. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2776-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Böstman  O, Kiviluoto  O, Nirhamo  J.  Comminuted displaced fractures of the patella.  Injury. 1981;13(3):196-202. doi:10.1016/0020-1383(81)90238-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Smith  ST, Cramer  KE, Karges  DE, Watson  JT, Moed  BR.  Early complications in the operative treatment of patella fractures.  J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11(3):183-187. doi:10.1097/00005131-199704000-00008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Hsu  K-L, Chang  W-L, Yang  C-Y, Yeh  M-L, Chang  C-W.  Factors affecting the outcomes of modified tension band wiring techniques in transverse patellar fractures.  Injury. 2017;48(12):2800-2806. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.10.016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Torchia  ME, Lewallen  DG.  Open fractures of the patella.  J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10(6):403-409. doi:10.1097/00005131-199608000-00007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Anand  S, Hahnel  JCR, Giannoudis  PV.  Open patellar fractures: high energy injuries with a poor outcome?  Injury. 2008;39(4):480-484. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2007.10.032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Wu  CC, Tai  CL, Chen  WJ.  Patellar tension band wiring: a revised technique.  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2001;121(1-2):12-16. doi:10.1007/s004020000183PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Uvaraj  NR, Mayil Vahanan  N, Sivaseelam  A, Mohd Sameer  M, Basha  IM.  Surgical management of neglected fractures of the patella.  Injury. 2007;38(8):979-983. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2007.02.025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Wu  D, Reng  G, Shrivastava  A, Yu  Y, Zhang  Y, Peng  C.  A useful surgical strategy for proximal tibial fractures (AO/OTA type 41-C) with diaphyseal involvement.  Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(8):13455-13463.PubMedGoogle Scholar
41.
Phisitkul  P, McKinley  TO, Nepola  JV, Marsh  JL.  Complications of locking plate fixation in complex proximal tibia injuries.  J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(2):83-91. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e318030df96PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Oh  C-W, Oh  J-K, Kyung  H-S,  et al.  Double plating of unstable proximal tibial fractures using minimally invasive percutaneous osteosynthesis technique.  Acta Orthop. 2006;77(3):524-530. doi:10.1080/17453670610012548PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Zhang  J, Ebraheim  N, Li  M,  et al.  External fixation using femoral less invasive stabilization system plate in tibial proximal metaphyseal fracture.  Clin Orthop Surg. 2015;7(1):8-14. doi:10.4055/cios.2015.7.1.8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Singh  H, Misra  RK, Kaur  M.  Management of proximal tibia fractures using wire based circular external fixator.  J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(9):RC01-RC04. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2015/15626.6513PubMedGoogle Scholar
45.
Luo  C-F, Jiang  R, Hu  C-F, Zeng  B-F.  Medial double-plating for fracture dislocations involving the proximal tibia.  Knee. 2006;13(5):389-394. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2006.05.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Jöckel  JA, Erhardt  J, Vincenti  M,  et al.  Minimally invasive and open surgical treatment of proximal tibia fractures using a polyaxial locking plate system: a prospective multi-centre study.  Int Orthop. 2013;37(4):701-708. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1820-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Kim  J-W, Oh  C-W, Jung  WJ, Kim  JS.  Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for open fractures of the proximal tibia.  Clin Orthop Surg. 2012;4(4):313-320. doi:10.4055/cios.2012.4.4.313PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Nikolaou  VS, Tan  HB, Haidukewych  G, Kanakaris  N, Giannoudis  PV.  Proximal tibial fractures: early experience using polyaxial locking-plate technology.  Int Orthop. 2011;35(8):1215-1221. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-1153-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Parkkinen  M, Madanat  R, Lindahl  J, Mäkinen  TJ.  Risk factors for deep infection following plate fixation of proximal tibial fractures.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(15):1292-1297. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.00894PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Egol  KA, Tejwani  NC, Capla  EL, Wolinsky  PL, Koval  KJ.  Staged management of high-energy proximal tibia fractures (OTA types 41): the results of a prospective, standardized protocol.  J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(7):448-455. doi:10.1097/01.bot.0000171881.11205.80PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Boldin  C, Fankhauser  F, Hofer  HP, Szyszkowitz  R.  Three-year results of proximal tibia fractures treated with the LISS.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;445(445):222-229.PubMedGoogle Scholar
52.
Cole  PA, Zlowodzki  M, Kregor  PJ.  Treatment of proximal tibia fractures using the less invasive stabilization system: surgical experience and early clinical results in 77 fractures.  J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(8):528-535. doi:10.1097/00005131-200409000-00008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Jiang  R, Luo  C-F, Wang  M-C, Yang  T-Y, Zeng  B-F.  A comparative study of Less Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) fixation and two-incision double plating for the treatment of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  Knee. 2008;15(2):139-143. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2007.12.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
54.
Yao  Y, Lv  H, Zan  J,  et al.  A comparison of lateral fixation versus dual plating for simple bicondylar fractures.  Knee. 2015;22(3):225-229. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2015.02.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
55.
Gross  J-B, Gavanier  B, Belleville  R, Coudane  H, Mainard  D.  Advantages of external hybrid fixators for treating Schatzker V-VI tibial plateau fractures: a retrospective study of 40 cases.  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103(6):965-970. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2017.05.023PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Xu  Y-Q, Li  Q, Shen  T-G, Su  P-H, Zhu  Y-Z.  An efficacy analysis of surgical timing and procedures for high-energy complex tibial plateau fractures.  Orthop Surg. 2013;5(3):188-195. doi:10.1111/os.12057PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
Abghari  M, Marcano  A, Davidovitch  R, Konda  SR, Egol  KA.  Are locked plates needed for split depression tibial plateau fractures?  J Knee Surg. 2016;29(6):482-486. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1567872PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Chan  Y-S, Yuan  L-J, Hung  S-S,  et al.  Arthroscopic-assisted reduction with bilateral buttress plate fixation of complex tibial plateau fractures.  Arthroscopy. 2003;19(9):974-984. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2003.09.038PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Ali  AM, Yang  L, Hashmi  M, Saleh  M.  Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures managed with the Sheffield hybrid fixator: biomechanical study and operative technique.  Injury. 2001;32(suppl 4):SD86-SD91. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(01)00165-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
60.
Stamer  DT, Schenk  R, Staggers  B, Aurori  K, Aurori  B, Behrens  FF.  Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with a hybrid ring external fixator: a preliminary study.  J Orthop Trauma. 1994;8(6):455-461. doi:10.1097/00005131-199412000-00001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
61.
Ferreira  N, Marais  LC.  Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with fine-wire circular external fixation.  Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2014;9(1):25-32. doi:10.1007/s11751-014-0185-zPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Sun  H, Zhai  Q-L, Xu  Y-F, Wang  Y-K, Luo  C-F, Zhang  C-Q.  Combined approaches for fixation of Schatzker type II tibial plateau fractures involving the posterolateral column: a prospective observational cohort study.  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(2):209-221. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-2131-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
63.
Lee  M-H, Hsu  C-J, Lin  K-C, Renn  J-H.  Comparison of outcome of unilateral locking plate and dual plating in the treatment of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:62. doi:10.1186/s13018-014-0062-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Chan  C, Keating  J.  Comparison of outcomes of operatively treated bicondylar tibial plateau fractures by external fixation and internal fixation.  Malays Orthop J. 2012;6(1):7-12. doi:10.5704/MOJ.1203.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Kugelman  D, Qatu  A, Haglin  J, Leucht  P, Konda  S, Egol  K.  Complications and unplanned outcomes following operative treatment of tibial plateau fractures.  Injury. 2017;48(10):2221-2229. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.07.016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
66.
Barei  DP, Nork  SE, Mills  WJ, Henley  MB, Benirschke  SK.  Complications associated with internal fixation of high-energy bicondylar tibial plateau fractures utilizing a two-incision technique.  J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(10):649-657. doi:10.1097/00005131-200411000-00001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
67.
Khatri  K, Sharma  V, Goyal  D, Farooque  K.  Complications in the management of closed high-energy proximal tibial plateau fractures.  Chin J Traumatol. 2016;19(6):342-347. doi:10.1016/j.cjtee.2016.08.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Ruffolo  MR, Gettys  FK, Montijo  HE, Seymour  RB, Karunakar  MA.  Complications of high-energy bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with dual plating through 2 incisions.  J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(2):85-90. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000203PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
Shah  CM, Babb  PE, McAndrew  CM,  et al.  Definitive plates overlapping provisional external fixator pin sites: is the infection risk increased?  J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(9):518-522. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000077PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
70.
Haller  JM, Holt  D, Rothberg  DL, Kubiak  EN, Higgins  TF.  Does early versus delayed spanning external fixation impact complication rates for high-energy tibial plateau and plafond fractures?  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(6):1436-1444. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4583-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
Ozkaya  U, Parmaksizoglu  AS.  Dual locked plating of unstable bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  Injury. 2015;46(suppl 2):S9-S13. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
72.
Shah  SN, Karunakar  MA.  Early wound complications after operative treatment of high energy tibial plateau fractures through two incisions.  Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2007;65(2):115-119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
73.
Chen  G, Liang  Y, Ruan  J, Chen  F, Wang  H, Zhu  G.  Effect of modified dual plating and less invasive stabilization system on the treatment of complex fractures of tibial plateau.  Biomed Res. 2018;28(22):10132-10136.Google Scholar
74.
Marsh  JL, Smith  ST, Do  TT.  External fixation and limited internal fixation for complex fractures of the tibial plateau.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(5):661-673. doi:10.2106/00004623-199505000-00002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
75.
Tao  X, Chen  N, Pan  F, Cheng  B.  External fixation combined with delayed internal fixation in treatment of tibial plateau fractures with dislocation.  Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(41):e8221. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000008221PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
76.
Stannard  JP, Wilson  TC, Volgas  DA, Alonso  JE.  Fracture stabilization of proximal tibial fractures with the proximal tibial LISS: early experience in Birmingham, Alabama (USA).  Injury. 2003;34(suppl 1):A36-A42. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(03)00256-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
77.
van den Berg  J, Reul  M, Nunes Cardozo  M,  et al.  Functional outcome of intra-articular tibial plateau fractures: the impact of posterior column fractures.  Int Orthop. 2017;41(9):1865-1873. doi:10.1007/s00264-017-3566-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
78.
Prasad  GT, Kumar  TS, Kumar  RK, Murthy  GK, Sundaram  N.  Functional outcome of Schatzker type V and VI tibial plateau fractures treated with dual plates.  Indian J Orthop. 2013;47(2):188-194. doi:10.4103/0019-5413.108915PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
79.
Yao  Y, Lv  H, Zan  J, Li  J, Zhu  N, Jing  J.  Functional outcomes of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with dual buttress plates and risk factors: a case series.  Injury. 2014;45(12):1980-1984. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
80.
Barei  DP, Nork  SE, Mills  WJ, Coles  CP, Henley  MB, Benirschke  SK.  Functional outcomes of severe bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with dual incisions and medial and lateral plates.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(8):1713-1721. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00907PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
81.
Babis  GC, Evangelopoulos  DS, Kontovazenitis  P, Nikolopoulos  K, Soucacos  PN.  High energy tibial plateau fractures treated with hybrid external fixation.  J Orthop Surg Res. 2011;6:35. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-6-35PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
82.
Keightley  AJ, Nawaz  SZ, Jacob  JT, Unnithan  A, Elliott  DS, Khaleel  A.  Ilizarov management of Schatzker IV to VI fractures of the tibial plateau: 105 fractures at a mean follow-up of 7.8 years.  Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(12):1693-1697. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B12.34635PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
83.
Ma  Q, Aierxiding  A, Wang  G, Wang  C, Yu  L, Shen  Z.  Incidence and risk factors for deep surgical site infection after open reduction and internal fixation of closed tibial plateau fractures in adults.  Int Wound J. 2018;15(2):237-242. doi:10.1111/iwj.12856PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
84.
Zhu  Y, Liu  S, Zhang  X, Chen  W, Zhang  Y.  Incidence and risks for surgical site infection after adult tibial plateau fractures treated by ORIF: a prospective multicentre study.  Int Wound J. 2017;14(6):982-988. doi:10.1111/iwj.12743PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
85.
Laible  C, Earl-Royal  E, Davidovitch  R, Walsh  M, Egol  KA.  Infection after spanning external fixation for high-energy tibial plateau fractures: is pin site-plate overlap a problem?  J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(2):92-97. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e31821cfb7aPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
86.
Meena  RC, Meena  UK, Gupta  GL, Gahlot  N, Gaba  S.  Intramedullary nailing versus proximal plating in the management of closed extra-articular proximal tibial fracture: a randomized controlled trial.  J Orthop Traumatol. 2015;16(3):203-208. doi:10.1007/s10195-014-0332-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
87.
Borade  A, Kempegowda  H, Richard  R, Graham  J, Suk  M, Horwitz  DS.  Is “early total care” a safe and effective alternative to “staged protocol” for the treatment of Schatzker IV-VI tibial plateau fractures in patients older than 50 years?  J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31(12):e400-e406. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000995PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
88.
Maroto  MD, Scolaro  JA, Henley  MB, Dunbar  RP.  Management and incidence of tibial tubercle fractures in bicondylar fractures of the tibial plateau.  Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(12):1697-1702. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B12.32016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
89.
Jansen  H, Frey  SP, Doht  S, Fehske  K, Meffert  RH.  Medium-term results after complex intra-articular fractures of the tibial plateau.  J Orthop Sci. 2013;18(4):569-577. doi:10.1007/s00776-013-0404-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
90.
van Dreumel  RLM, van Wunnik  BPW, Janssen  L, Simons  PCG, Janzing  HMJ.  Mid- to long-term functional outcome after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures.  Injury. 2015;46(8):1608-1612. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.035PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
91.
Giannetti  S, Bizzotto  N, Stancati  A, Santucci  A.  Minimally invasive fixation in tibial plateau fractures using an pre-operative and intra-operative real size 3D printing.  Injury. 2017;48(3):784-788. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2016.11.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
92.
Ariffin  HM, Mahdi  NM, Rhani  SA, Baharudin  A, Shukur  MH.  Modified hybrid fixator for high-energy Schatzker V and VI tibial plateau fractures.  Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2011;6(1):21-26. doi:10.1007/s11751-011-0105-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
93.
Zhai  Q, Hu  C, Luo  C.  Multi-plate reconstruction for severe bicondylar tibial plateau fractures of young adults.  Int Orthop. 2014;38(5):1031-1035. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2211-zPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
94.
Rademakers  MV, Kerkhoffs  GMMJ, Sierevelt  IN, Raaymakers  ELFB, Marti  RK.  Operative treatment of 109 tibial plateau fractures: five- to 27-year follow-up results.  J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(1):5-10. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e31802c5b51PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
95.
Su  EP, Westrich  GH, Rana  AJ, Kapoor  K, Helfet  DL.  Operative treatment of tibial plateau fractures in patients older than 55 years.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(421):240-248. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000119247.60317.bcPubMedGoogle Scholar
96.
Giordano  V, do Amaral  NP, Koch  HA, E Albuquerque  RP, de Souza  FS, Dos Santos Neto  JF.  Outcome evaluation of staged treatment for bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  Injury. 2017;48(suppl 4):S34-S40. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(17)30773-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
97.
Ali  AM.  Outcomes of open bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with Ilizarov external fixator with or without minimal internal fixation.  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23(3):349-355. doi:10.1007/s00590-012-0989-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
98.
Colman  M, Wright  A, Gruen  G, Siska  P, Pape  H-C, Tarkin  I.  Prolonged operative time increases infection rate in tibial plateau fractures.  Injury. 2013;44(2):249-252. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2012.10.032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
99.
Urruela  AM, Davidovitch  R, Karia  R, Khurana  S, Egol  KA.  Results following operative treatment of tibial plateau fractures.  J Knee Surg. 2013;26(3):161-165. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1324807PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
100.
Conserva  V, Vicenti  G, Allegretti  G,  et al.  Retrospective review of tibial plateau fractures treated by two methods without staging.  Injury. 2015;46(10):1951-1956. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.07.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
101.
Momaya  AM, Hlavacek  J, Etier  B,  et al.  Risk factors for infection after operative fixation of Tibial plateau fractures.  Injury. 2016;47(7):1501-1505. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2016.04.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
102.
Bertrand  ML, Pascual-López  FJ, Guerado  E.  Severe tibial plateau fractures (Schatzker V-VI): open reduction and internal fixation versus hybrid external fixation.  Injury. 2017;48(suppl 6):S81-S85. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(17)30799-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
103.
Gosling  T, Schandelmaier  P, Muller  M, Hankemeier  S, Wagner  M, Krettek  C. Single lateral locked screw plating of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;439:207-214.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
104.
Kataria  H, Sharma  N, Kanojia  RK.  Small wire external fixation for high-energy tibial plateau fractures.  J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2007;15(2):137-143. doi:10.1177/230949900701500202PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
105.
Bagherifard  A, Jabalameli  M, Hadi  H,  et al.  Surgical management of tibial plateau fractures with 3.5 mm simple plates.  Trauma Mon. 2016;21(2):e26733. doi:10.5812/traumamon.26733PubMedGoogle Scholar
106.
Lin  S, Mauffrey  C, Hammerberg  EM, Stahel  PF, Hak  DJ.  Surgical site infection after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures.  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(5):797-803. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1252-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
107.
Dubina  AG, Paryavi  E, Manson  TT, Allmon  C, O’Toole  RV.  Surgical site infection in tibial plateau fractures with ipsilateral compartment syndrome.  Injury. 2017;48(2):495-500. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2016.10.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
108.
Faldini  C, Manca  M, Pagkrati  S,  et al.  Surgical treatment of complex tibial plateau fractures by closed reduction and external fixation: a review of 32 consecutive cases operated.  J Orthop Traumatol. 2005;6(4):188-193. doi:10.1007/s10195-005-0107-4Google ScholarCrossref
109.
Stannard  JP, Wilson  TC, Volgas  DA, Alonso  JE.  The less invasive stabilization system in the treatment of complex fractures of the tibial plateau: short-term results.  J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(8):552-558. doi:10.1097/00005131-200409000-00012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
110.
Ahearn  N, Oppy  A, Halliday  R,  et al.  The outcome following fixation of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(7):956-962. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B7.32837PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
111.
Bobic  V, O’Dwyer  KJ.  Tibial plateau fractures: the arthroscopic option.  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1993;1(3-4):239-242. doi:10.1007/BF01560217PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
112.
Russell  N, Tamblyn  P, Jaarsma  R.  Tibial plateau fractures treated with plate fixation: to lock or not to lock.  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2008;19(2):75. doi:10.1007/s00590-008-0372-zGoogle ScholarCrossref
113.
Lee  JA, Papadakis  SA, Moon  C, Zalavras  CG.  Tibial plateau fractures treated with the less invasive stabilisation system.  Int Orthop. 2007;31(3):415-418. doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0176-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
114.
Manidakis  N, Dosani  A, Dimitriou  R, Stengel  D, Matthews  S, Giannoudis  P.  Tibial plateau fractures: functional outcome and incidence of osteoarthritis in 125 cases.  Int Orthop. 2010;34(4):565-570. doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0790-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
115.
Biggi  F, Di Fabio  S, D’Antimo  C, Trevisani  S.  Tibial plateau fractures: internal fixation with locking plates and the MIPO technique.  Injury. 2010;41(11):1178-1182. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2010.08.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
116.
Zura  RD, Adams  SB  Jr, Jeray  KJ, Obremskey  WT, Stinnett  SS, Olson  SA; Southeastern Fracture Consortium Foundation.  Timing of definitive fixation of severe tibial plateau fractures with compartment syndrome does not have an effect on the rate of infection.  J Trauma. 2010;69(6):1523-1526. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181d40403PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
117.
Tang  X, Liu  L, Tu  C-Q,  et al.  Timing of internal fixation and effect on Schatzker IV-VI tibial plateau fractures.  Chin J Traumatol. 2012;15(2):81-85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
118.
Kumar  A, Whittle  AP.  Treatment of complex (Schatzker type VI) fractures of the tibial plateau with circular wire external fixation: retrospective case review.  J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14(5):339-344. doi:10.1097/00005131-200006000-00006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
119.
Egol  KA, Su  E, Tejwani  NC, Sims  SH, Kummer  FJ, Koval  KJ.  Treatment of complex tibial plateau fractures using the less invasive stabilization system plate: clinical experience and a laboratory comparison with double plating.  J Trauma. 2004;57(2):340-346. doi:10.1097/01.TA.0000112326.09272.13PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
120.
Dendrinos  GK, Kontos  S, Katsenis  D, Dalas  A.  Treatment of high-energy tibial plateau fractures by the Ilizarov circular fixator.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(5):710-717. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.78B5.0780710PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
121.
Gaunder  CL, Zhao  Z, Henderson  C, McKinney  BR, Stahel  PF, Zelle  BA.  Wound complications after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures in the elderly: a multicentre study.  Int Orthop. 2019;43(2):461-465. doi:10.1007/s00264-018-3940-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
122.
Shao  J, Chang  H, Zhu  Y,  et al.  Incidence and risk factors for surgical site infection after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Int J Surg. 2017;41:176-182. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.03.085PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
123.
Yoon  RS, Bible  J, Marcus  MS,  et al.  Outcomes following combined intramedullary nail and plate fixation for complex tibia fractures: a multi-centre study.  Injury. 2015;46(6):1097-1101. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.03.019PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
124.
Iliopoulos  E, Morrissey  N, Cho  S, Khaleel  A.  Outcomes of the Ilizarov frame use in elderly patients.  J Orthop Sci. 2017;22(4):783-786. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2017.03.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
125.
Singh  K, Bauer  JM, LaChaud  GY, Bible  JE, Mir  HR.  Surgical site infection in high-energy peri-articular tibia fractures with intra-wound vancomycin powder: a retrospective pilot study.  J Orthop Traumatol. 2015;16(4):287-291. doi:10.1007/s10195-015-0352-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
126.
Lovisetti  G, Vulcano  E, Bettella  L, Tasarib  R, Tondolo  T, Sala  F.  Treatment with circular external fixation of bicondylar tibial fractures: potential in accurate reduction and efficacy on functional results.  J Knee Surg. 2018;31(5):459-466. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1604139PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
127.
Scott  J, Checketts  JX, Horn  JG, Cooper  C, Vassar  M.  “Knee osteoarthritis and current research for evidence: are we on the right way?”.  Int Orthop. 2018;42(9):2105-2112. doi:10.1007/s00264-018-3932-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
128.
Checketts  JX, Scott  J, Gordon  J,  et al.  An evaluation of the rotator cuff repair research pipeline.  Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(11):2325967118805731. doi:10.1177/2325967118805731PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
129.
Checketts  JX, Sims  MT, Detweiler  B, Middlemist  K, Jones  J, Vassar  M.  An evaluation of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registry requirements among orthopaedic surgery journals.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(3):e15. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.00529PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
130.
Checketts  JX, Scott  JT, Meyer  C, Horn  J, Jones  J, Vassar  M.  The robustness of trials that guide evidence-based orthopaedic surgery.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(12):e85. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.01039PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Views 797
    Original Investigation
    Orthopedics
    August 23, 2019

    Prevalence of Deep Surgical Site Infection After Repair of Periarticular Knee Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

    Author Affiliations
    • 1High Point University, High Point, North Carolina
    • 2Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa
    • 3Department of Orthopedics, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa
    • 4Orthopedic & Trauma Services of Oklahoma, Tulsa
    • 5University of Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom
    JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(8):e199951. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9951
    Key Points español 中文 (chinese)

    Question  What is the overall prevalence of deep surgical site infection after surgical repair of periarticular knee fractures?

    Findings  This systematic review and meta-analysis examined 117 studies including 11 432 patients. Among them, 5.7% of patients experienced deep surgical site infections, most commonly among patients with proximal tibia fractures (6.4%); among 20 studies that reported data on septic arthritis, 2.4% of patients experienced septic arthritis.

    Meaning  Surgeons managing periarticular knee fractures should be vigilant when wounds are not pristine.

    Abstract

    Importance  Surgical management of periarticular knee fractures can be challenging, and adverse outcomes may be severe. Recent literature indicates that the rate of periarticular knee surgical site infection (SSI) may range from 2% to 88% depending on the fracture site.

    Objective  To examine the prevalence of deep SSI and the rate of septic arthritis after surgical repair of fractures around the knee.

    Data Sources  The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception to July 1, 2018.

    Study Selection  Eligible studies had to specifically report deep SSI rates and include fractures in the distal femur, patella, tibial plateau, or proximal tibia. Risk factors that were associated with increased the risk of deep SSI were also examined.

    Data Extraction and Synthesis  This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data were extracted by multiple investigators. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used for the pooling of data, using either random-effects or fixed-effects models, with respect to the degree of statistical heterogeneity present. Data analyses were conducted in October 2019.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was overall prevalence of deep SSI after periarticular knee fracture repair. The secondary outcomes were the overall prevalence of septic arthritis, risk factors associated with deep SSI, and the most commonly cultured bacteria specimens found periarticular knee infections.

    Results  Of 6928 articles screened, 117 articles met inclusion criteria and were included in analysis. Among 11 432 patients included in analysis, 653 patients (5.7%) experienced deep SSIs, most commonly among patients with proximal tibia fractures (56 of 872 patients [6.4%]). Among studies that included information on septic arthritis, 38 of 1567 patients (2.4%) experienced septic arthritis. The 2 most commonly reported bacteria were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, found in 67 SSIs, and methicillin-susceptible S aureus, found in 53 SSIs. Sixty-two studies (53.0%) in the sample received a Coleman Methodological Score of poor (<50 points).

    Conclusions and Relevance  Deep SSIs occurred in nearly 6% of periarticular knee fracture repairs, and 2.4% of SSIs were associated with septic arthritis. Surgeons managing these injuries should be vigilant when wounds are not pristine. Efforts should be made to elevate the quality of research conducted not only in this subject but also in orthopedic surgery as a whole.

    Introduction

    The goals for treating fractures around the knee include satisfactory restoration of mechanical alignment, anatomical reduction of the articular surface, and stable fixation to allow early motion of the knee.1 Managing these fractures can be challenging, and adverse outcomes can include nonunion, malunion, heterotopic ossification, arthrofibrosis, compartment syndrome, and infection among others.2

    Recent literature indicates that the rate of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) may range from 13% to 88% for tibial plateau fractures,2 3% to 17% for distal femur fractures,3 2% to 10% for patellar fractures,4-7 and 3% to 45% for proximal tibia fractures.8 Although the reported infection rates of periarticular knee fractures are highly variable, understanding the frequency with which infectious adverse outcomes occur is important to orthopedic surgeons for the management and prevention of adverse outcomes, such as unsatisfactory outcomes for the affected patient and possible loss of function in the affected region.8,9 Furthermore, patients with SSIs have been found to have higher mortality rates compared with patients without SSIs, as well as extended time spent in the hospital and higher costs of medical care.10,11

    Although many studies and a few systematic reviews have been conducted to evaluate the prevalence of SSI after repair of distal femur, tibial plateau, proximal tibia, or patellar fractures, to our knowledge, a single systematic review has not been conducted that elucidates the overall magnitude of deep SSIs after surgical management of fractures around the knee as a whole. The purpose of this systematic review was to obtain a more thorough understanding of the prevalence of deep SSIs after the repair of fractures around the knee. We also evaluated the bacteria associated with these infections in the hope of elucidating which bacteria are most commonly associated with periarticular knee deep SSIs. Furthermore, we analyzed risk factors associated with periarticular knee deep SSIs, such as tobacco use, diabetes, sex, compartment syndrome, and type of fracture (ie, open vs closed) using a meta-analytical method.

    Methods

    This systematic review and meta-analysis applied and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline, and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews was closely followed. Our inclusion criteria included studies with patients who were ambulatory and had sustained a distal femur, tibial plateau, proximal tibia, or patellar fracture, whether as a single injury or as a component of multiple trauma. All interventions used for these patients were included in our analysis.

    Experimental and animal studies, review articles, articles with a primary patient population younger than 18 years, letters to the editor, case reports, cadaveric studies, studies with fewer than 20 patients, and studies evaluating fractures associated with metabolic conditions, paraplegia, periprosthetic fractures, or malignancy were excluded. Our primary outcome was the rate of periarticular knee deep SSIs. Our secondary outcomes included risk factors associated with periarticular knee deep SSIs (ie, smoking, diabetes, sex, compartment syndrome, and type of fracture), types of bacteria associated with periarticular knee deep SSI, and fracture location associated with the greatest risk of periarticular knee deep SSI. The overall prevalence of septic arthritis (as a specific type of deep SSI) was evaluated as a secondary outcome, as it is common practice in traumatology research to report deep and superficial infections without delineating whether the deep infection was or led to septic arthritis.

    Study Identification

    The electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception to July 1, 2018. Data analyses were conducted in October 2019. We used the following terms and Boolean operators: “(distal femur OR distal femoral OR proximal tibia* OR tibia* plateau OR patella*) AND (fracture OR pin OR screw OR nail OR plate OR plating OR fixation OR ORIF) AND (infection OR sepsis OR septic OR adverse effect OR adverse event OR complication OR incidence OR risk factor).” We did not apply any restrictions on language or country of publication as long as the paper was available in English or was able to be translated into English via Google Translate (Alphabet). Furthermore, we examined reference lists of applicable reviews and the included articles for any applicable articles not returned by our search. We also manually searched for recently published studies by evaluating the electronic databases of applicable orthopedic journals to prevent the possibility of missing recently published literature. Using Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute), a tool for optimizing work flow of systematic reviews, 2 of us (G.R.N. and J.X.C.) independently screened titles and abstracts to identify relevant trials. We used Paperpile (Paperpile) to retrieve and access full texts of the studies that met our inclusion criteria.

    Quality Assessment

    We used the modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) as presented by Saleeb et al12 to evaluate the methodological quality of all primary studies included in our analysis.13 The modifications to the CMS by Saleeb et al12 were slight changes in syntax and checkpoints to better reflect what would be expected from a well-conducted traumatology study. Because their study also evaluated infection rates postfracture, we decided that using this slightly modified version would be better suited for our study. The CMS is a comprehensive tool to evaluate the methodological quality of surgical studies. Factors evaluated by CMS include study size, mean follow-up, number of surgical procedures, study type, diagnostic certainty, surgical protocol description, postoperative rehabilitation description, description of desired outcomes, description of how outcomes were assessed, and description of subject selection process. These categories are assigned a specific subset of points that can be obtained for each level of methodological quality. For example, in the study type category, randomized clinical trials are assigned 15 points, prospective cohort studies are assigned 10 points, and retrospective cohort studies are assigned 0 points. The CMS has a score range from 0 to 100, with a higher score indicating more robust methodological quality and a lower risk of bias and confounding factors. Scores are broken into 4 categories: (1) excellent (85-100 points), (2) good (70-84 points), (3) fair (50-69 points), and (4) poor (<50 points).

    Data Extraction

    Two of us (G.R.N. and J.X.C.) used independent double data extraction to evaluate titles and abstracts of the returned articles. For all studies included after the title and abstract screening, we obtained the full text of the article to evaluate for further inclusion. Disagreements in this stage were mitigated by group discussion between both investigators and with a third investigator (B.L.N.) when needed. Within a predefined Google Sheet (Alphabet), extracted baseline characteristics of the included articles and their outcome data were organized by fracture type. To prevent redundancy or duplication of data, the author names and journal titles were not masked throughout this process.

    Consistency of included articles and extracted variables within our results was ensured by predetermined definitions and inclusion criteria. For instance, an SSI was considered a deep SSI if the article described it as deep, septic, or osteomyelitis or if hardware removal was required owing to the SSI. Furthermore, if the SSI was located deep within the fascia or bone and required bone or soft-tissue debridement, then it was considered a deep SSI. We also delineated whether deep SSIs resulted in septic arthritis if a study specified that an SSI was septic or in the joint. Superficial SSIs were defined as those which only involved superficial tissues and resolved easily with antibiotic treatment and dressing management. For a study to be included in our sample, the authors had to delineate between superficial and deep SSIs. For example, if the study only used the word infections but never specifically stated deep infection or superficial infection, or it did not describe the characteristics of the SSI, then it was not included in our study.

    Statistical Analysis

    Risk factors of interest were expressed as proportions (eg, deep SSI, superficial infection, diabetic status, smoking status). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Biostat) was used for pooling data, using either fixed-effects or random-effects models, depending on the degree of statistical heterogeneity present. The Cochran Q and Higgins I2 tests were used to test statistical heterogeneity. For the Cochran Q test, statistical significance was set at .10, and for the Higgins I2 test, statistical significance was set at 50% or greater. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for nonparametric comparisons of the median values between groups of interest.

    For studies with different comparator groups, binary outcomes were summarized as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. For outcomes of interest, pooled estimates of effect size were obtained using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Depending on the degree of heterogeneity, a fixed-effects or random-effects model was used.

    Results

    Our initial electronic search yielded 6928 results. Following the removal of duplicate studies, a total of 4472 studies were available for title and abstract screening (Figure 1). With our inclusion criteria applied and relevant reference lists screened, 117 studies1,2,4,5,10,14-126 with 11 432 patient outcomes (mean [SD] age, 46.6 [6.9] years, range: 28-67 years) were included for this review.

    For each primary study, we extracted data regarding design, size, patient demographic characteristics, and outcomes of interest. Of these, 71 studies2,10,53-121 (60.7%) evaluated tibial plateau fractures, 16 studies14-29 (13.7%) evaluated distal femur fractures, 13 studies40-52 (11.1%) evaluated proximal tibia fractures, 10 studies4,5,32-47 (8.5%) evaluated patellar fractures, and 7 studies1,30,31,123-126 (6.0%) evaluated fractures of multiple sites. Additionally, 81 studies1,2,4,10,14,19-24,27,28,30-37,39-42,47,49,55,56,60,61,63,64,66-72,74,75,77-81,83,85,87,88,90,93-98,100-102,104,106,108,110-119,121-126 (68.4%) were retrospective, 32 studies16,17,25,26,29,38,43-46,48,50-53,56-59,62,73,76,82,84,89,91,92,99,103,105,109,120 were prospective cohort studies, and 4 studies15,18,24,86 were prospective randomized controlled trials. Further details of study characteristics can be found in the eTable in the Supplement. Timing to SSI is also described in the eTable in the Supplement; however, because each study described this timing differently, we elected to quote each study’s reported time to SSI because statistics could not be extrapolated.

    Quality Assessment

    The CMS score of our included studies ranged from 15 to 97 (mean [SD], 50.41 [15.24]; median [interquartile range], 49 [39-59]). Sixty-two studies (53.0%) in our sample scored a poor CMS score, while 43 studies (36.8%) had a fair CMS score, 10 studies (8.6%) had a good CMS score, and 3 studies (2.6%) had an excellent CMS score. The 3 CMS criteria in which the most studies did not receive points or lost points were the categories evaluating the type of study (most were retrospective), the description of postoperative rehabilitation protocol (most did not discuss this protocol), and the procedure for assessing outcomes (most did not discuss this process).

    Deep SSI Rates

    Among 11 432 patients included in our analysis, 653 (5.7% [95% CI, 4.4%-6.2%]) experienced deep SSIs. Superficial SSIs occurred in 388 patients (3.4%). Figure 2 presents the degree of heterogeneity within the 117 studies. The mean age of the patients did not have a statistically significant association with the deep SSI rate. For studies with a CMS score of excellent or good, the incidence of deep SSI within these studies was 18 of 804 cases (2.2%), whereas the incidence of deep SSI among studies designated as fair or poor was 635 of 10 628 cases (6.0%) (P < .001).

    Distal Femur

    There were 1011 distal femur fractures included in our sample. Deep SSIs occurred in 58 patients (5.7% [95% CI, 5.4%-8.8%]), and superficial SSIs occurred in 14 patients (1.4%).

    Patella

    There were 1150 patellar fractures in our sample. Deep SSIs occurred in 47 patients (4.1% [95% CI, 3.9%-6.8%]), and superficial SSIs occurred in 11 patients (1.0%).

    Tibial Plateau

    There were 7925 tibial plateau fractures in our sample. Deep SSIs occurred in 464 patients (5.9% [95% CI, 4.2%-6.3%]), and superficial SSIs occurred in 330 patients (4.2%).

    Proximal Tibia

    There were 872 proximal tibia fractures in our sample. Deep SSIs occurred in 56 patients (6.4% [95% CI, 2.4%-9.7%]), and superficial SSIs occurred in 23 patients (2.6%).

    Multiple Locations

    There were 474 fractures included in studies evaluating multiple areas in our sample. Deep SSIs occurred in 28 patients (5.9% [95% CI, 4.0%-14.1%]), and superficial SSIs occurred in 10 patients (2.1%).

    Septic Arthritis

    There were 20 studies that reported septic arthritis among their cohort. These studies included 1567 patients. Among these studies, the septic arthritis occurred in 38 patients (2.4%) (eTable in the Supplement).

    Microbiological Analysis

    Sixteen studies2,26,28,36,41,52,66,72,74,83,84,101,106,111,113,125 reported the bacterial culture results of the infected fracture sites. The results are listed in Table 1. Of 182 deep SSIs with bacterial culture results, 67 (36.8%) were culture positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and 53 deep SSIs were culture positive for methicillin-susceptible S aureus. These were the 2 most commonly reported bacteria.

    Subset Analysis

    We analyzed factors associated with deep periarticular knee infection via subset analysis (Table 2). Our analysis found a statistically significant prevalence of periarticular knee infections in smokers (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.51-2.62; P < .001) (Figure 3A). Additionally, patients with diabetes were also associated with an increased risk of developing deep periarticular knee SSIs (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.15-2.53; P = .008) (Figure 3B). Men had a higher risk of developing deep periarticular knee infections than women (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.41-2.78; P < .001;) (Figure 3C). Additionally, a statistically significant increased risk was found among patients with compartment syndrome compared with those without (OR, 4.22; 95% CI, 2.80-6.37; P < .001) (Figure 3D) and among patients with open fractures compared with those with closed fractures (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 2.45-4.85; P < .001) (Figure 3E).

    Discussion

    Periarticular fractures around the knee are unique injuries, as they require the restoration of complex bone anatomy of the distal femur and proximal tibia as well as recovery of the surrounding soft-tissue envelope to promote return of knee function. Additionally, the soft-tissue anatomy around the knee is very intricate, including the extensor mechanism, knee capsule, meniscal cartilage, supporting ligaments, and tendinous attachments. These structures are often injured with the associated fractures and require repair or reconstruction to preserve knee function. Finally, the overlying soft-tissue envelope around the knee is thin and limited in the amount of mobilization or surgical insult it can tolerate. Overwhelming soft-tissue trauma or loss can lead to the need for soft-tissue reconstruction with rotational flaps or free tissue transfer.

    Furthermore, periarticular knee fractures are often intraarticular, which makes them prone to developing traumatic arthritis. Anatomic reduction is necessary to help preserve the articular surface. Opening the joint is usually required to reconstruct an anatomic joint. If an SSI develops, deep infection into the joint can ensue. Our study found an overall prevalence of deep SSI of nearly 6%, and the prevalence of septic arthritis was 2.5%. Joint sepsis can further compromise knee function and overall outcomes. Additionally, septic arthritis may preclude salvage procedures, such as knee arthroplasty, which might be the only option to restore function to a badly damaged knee joint.

    The type of injury to the soft-tissue envelope is a major determinant to the timing of surgical intervention of periarticular knee fractures. Open fractures require emergent incision and debridement of the soft tissue and often delayed definitive fixation of the skeletal tissues. Definitive skeletal stabilization can be performed only after the soft tissues are stabilized and tissue edema and swelling are resolving. If this process is rushed, the result is often catastrophic, as deep SSI will often ensue after wound breakdown or further loss of soft tissues that did not have adequate time to recover prior to further surgical trauma. This may be the most common reason rates of SSI are highest around the proximal tibia where the soft-tissue envelope is very thin.

    In this study, a deep SSI rate of 5.7% and a superficial SSI rate of 3.4% were observed. Our results indicated that proximal tibia fractures were associated with the highest rate of deep SSI, observed in 6.4% of patients who underwent proximal tibia fracture operations; however, this rate was based on a smaller number of patients and was not statistically significant, as the CI overlapped with those for other fracture locations. Among the SSI incidents that included laboratory data, MRSA and methicillin-susceptible S aureus were the most commonly found bacteria. Surveillance data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and European Centre for Disease Control report MRSA prevalence at 1% and 5%, respectively. Considering that MRSA was the most common pathogen in our study and that this pathogen is increasing in prevalence, health care practitioners should revisit the use of specific and appropriate prophylactic antibiotics, especially in patients who exhibit known risk factors.

    Subset analysis revealed that compared with the overall prevalence of SSI, smokers experienced a 3-fold greater SSI rate of 17.8%. Patients with compartment syndrome were associated with a severe predisposition to SSI, with a rate of 33.8%. This is consistent with a 2017 study by Shao et al122 that emphasized the association of compartment syndrome with the development of SSI. Open fractures were also associated with a greater risk of SSI, with patients with open fractures experiencing SSIs at a rate of 24.1%. This is a 3-fold increase from the 8.7% rate of SSI among patients with closed fractures. Additionally, patients with diabetes experienced SSI at a rate of 14.3% compared with 7.8% among patients who did not have diabetes. The results also revealed that men have nearly a 2-fold increased risk of SSI compared with women (8.8% vs 4.9%). Aside from open fractures and sex, these conditions illustrate the importance of a viable, healthy soft tissue envelope and adequate blood flow to the injured limb. The microvascular blood flow in patients with a smoking history, diabetes, or compartment syndrome is likely impaired, putting these individuals at a higher risk of a deep SSI owing to a decreased ability to deliver antibiotics or adequate white blood cells to the region to fight infection. Open fractures may have a higher risk of infection owing to a direct bacterial inoculum at the time of injury which may be accompanied by surrounding devitalized tissue injury that is not debrided in a timely and adequate manner.

    The prevalence of septic arthritis in our study was based on a small number of studies and patients, which may be prone to bias or underclassification of septic arthritis. This is because not every study delineated whether the deep SSIs reported were within the joint. Thus, we propose that future studies should more clearly delineate within their samples the incidence of deep SSIs that are or lead to septic arthritis.

    Limitations

    Our study had limitations. Many studies that have been conducted do not include the incidence of infection, septic arthritis, responsible microorganism, or the prophylactic strategies used to reduce SSI rates. Best practices to reduce infectious adverse outcomes for perioperative management at the time of periarticular fracture cannot be made on the basis of this study but should be the focus of future interventional studies. Moreover, other important parameters that could have an effect on the development of an SSI, such as type of incision, (minimally invasive vs open approach), type of fracture (simple vs complex), length of surgery, type of injury (crush injury vs a fall), method of reduction used (open vs closed), were not included in the final analysis, as the information on these factors provided in the studies was limited. Although we created our search to be as inclusive as possible, it is likely that relevant studies were not returned by our search.

    A further limitation of this study is the shortage of randomized control trials and a low mean CMS score, which can be attributed to the high percentage of retrospective studies used. In the authors’ opinion, this finding increases the value of this work. Because this is by far the most comprehensive systematic review taken regarding periarticular knee fractures and SSI rate to our knowledge, our sample of studies likely represents the body of orthopedic traumatology research as a whole. Furthermore, our study found that studies with higher methodological quality had a statistically significant decrease in the prevalence of deep SSI. This suggests that if orthopedic surgeons design higher-quality studies, patient outcomes may be improved compared with patients included in lower quality studies. Recent studies127-130 further reinforce this sentiment that the room for improvement in orthopedic research quality is vast. In addition, poor quality studies are not necessarily inaccurate ones.

    There was a high degree of asymmetry and heterogeneity in our sample of studies. First, the quality of many of the studies included in our review was poor, and retrospective studies were likely pooled in our assessment, adding to the asymmetry. Next, because our evaluation was comprised of studies in multiple fracture sites, from multiple countries, and of varying sizes, this could also contribute to the asymmetry of our funnel plot. It is also possible for differences in underlying risk, effect measures, and intensity of intervention to result in an asymmetric funnel plot. It must be acknowledged that some degree of publication bias is possible when funnel plots are asymmetric, but our large sample size renders this unlikely.

    Greater efforts must be taken by those conducting orthopedic research to improve study design and limit methodological bias. Authors in orthopedic traumatology should strive to conduct higher-quality research, such as randomized clinical trials and case-control or cohort studies. Greater knowledge of quality assessment scores, such as those conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration, and the CMS may help researchers prospectively structure their studies in a manner that will be methodologically robust. Our hope is that by bringing attention to the poor quality of studies comprising a large sample of orthopedic traumatology research, future studies will pay greater attention to improving quality and reducing bias. By doing so, future systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthopedic traumatology may not have this same limitation.

    Conclusion

    In this meta-analysis, the proximal tibia was associated with the highest risk of developing a deep SSI, although this association may be owing to a smaller number of studies on the area. Furthermore, deep SSIs appeared more commonly than superficial SSIs; however, we recognize this could be owing to underestimation of superficial SSIs in the data set. Therefore, surgeons managing periarticular knee fractures must remain vigilant when wounds are not pristine. Septic arthritis occurred at a rate of 2.5% in studies reporting this statistic. Risk factors, such as open fractures, diabetes, smoking, and, most importantly, compartment syndrome, should alert the treating surgeon to an increased risk. Further work is needed to mitigate the association of these conditions with SSI risk in periarticular knee fractures. Given that these risk factors are not easily influenced, they do not outline a clear method to reduce SSI but instead present conditions wherein heightened awareness from a surgeon could potentially decrease the occurrence of SSI. Future studies are needed to determine the timing of internal fixation for periarticular knee fractures in patients with compartment syndrome (eg, waiting until the soft-tissue envelope has healed), the use of local and new systemic antibiotics in open fracture management (eg, adding prophylaxis for MRSA in certain populations and clinical scenarios), the association of diabetes status with SSI risk (eg, delaying treatment until control of the blood glucose has been obtained), and the association of smoking cessation with risk of deep SSI. In addition, if indicated, evaluating the management of concomitant peripheral vascular disease associated with either diabetes or smoking could also be beneficial. Finally, researchers conducting future studies that focus on periarticular deep SSI rates should more thoroughly report the prevalence of infection within the joint.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: July 5, 2019.

    Published: August 23, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.9951

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Norris GR et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Jake X. Checketts, BS, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK 74107 (jake.checketts@okstate.edu).

    Author Contributions: Mr Checketts and Dr B. L. Norris had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Checketts, Scott, Vassar, B. L. Norris, Giannoudis.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: G. R. Norris, Checketts, Scott, Vassar.

    Drafting of the manuscript: G. R. Norris, Checketts, Scott, Vassar, B. L. Norris.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Checketts, Scott, Vassar, B. L. Norris, Giannoudis.

    Statistical analysis: G. R. Norris, Checketts, Vassar.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: G. R. Norris, Checketts, Vassar, B. L. Norris, Giannoudis.

    Supervision: Checketts, Scott, Vassar, B. L. Norris, Giannoudis.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Giannoudis reported grants from Zimmer Biomet and DePuy Synthes outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

    References
    1.
    Liu  F, Tao  R, Cao  Y,  et al.  The role of LISS (less invasive stabilisation system) in the treatment of peri-knee fractures.  Injury. 2009;40(11):1187-1194. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2009.03.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Morris  BJ, Unger  RZ, Archer  KR, Mathis  SL, Perdue  AM, Obremskey  WT.  Risk factors of infection after ORIF of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27(9):e196-e200. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e318284704ePubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Rodriguez  EK, Boulton  C, Weaver  MJ,  et al.  Predictive factors of distal femoral fracture nonunion after lateral locked plating: a retrospective multicenter case-control study of 283 fractures.  Injury. 2014;45(3):554-559. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2013.10.042PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Kadar  A, Sherman  H, Glazer  Y, Katz  E, Steinberg  EL.  Predictors for nonunion, reoperation and infection after surgical fixation of patellar fracture.  J Orthop Sci. 2015;20(1):168-173. doi:10.1007/s00776-014-0658-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Hoshino  CM, Tran  W, Tiberi  JV,  et al.  Complications following tension-band fixation of patellar fractures with cannulated screws compared with Kirschner wires.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(7):653-659. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01549PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    LeBrun  CT, Langford  JR, Sagi  HC.  Functional outcomes after operatively treated patella fractures.  J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(7):422-426. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e318228c1a1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Petrie  J, Sassoon  A, Langford  J.  Complications of patellar fracture repair: treatment and results.  J Knee Surg. 2013;26(5):309-312. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1353990PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Henkelmann  R, Frosch  K-H, Glaab  R,  et al; Committee TRAUMA of the AGA-Society for Arthroscopy and Joint Surgery.  Infection following fractures of the proximal tibia: a systematic review of incidence and outcome.  BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):481. doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1847-zPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Heppert  V, Rheinwalt  K, Winkler  H, Wentzensen  A.  Infection of the proximal tibia after fractures: an avoidable complication.  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 1997;7(3):195-198. doi:10.1007/BF00579288Google ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Basques  BA, Webb  ML, Bohl  DD, Golinvaux  NS, Grauer  JN.  Adverse events, length of stay, and readmission after surgery for tibial plateau fractures.  J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(3):e121-e126. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000231PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Kirkland  KB, Briggs  JP, Trivette  SL, Wilkinson  WE, Sexton  DJ.  The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(11):725-730. doi:10.1086/501572PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Saleeb  H, Tosounidis  T, Papakostidis  C, Giannoudis  PV.  Incidence of deep infection, union and malunion for open diaphyseal femoral shaft fractures treated with IM nailing: a systematic review.  Surgeon. 2018;(August):S1479-666X(18)30095-7. doi:10.1016/j.surge.2018.08.003PubMedGoogle Scholar
    13.
    Coleman  BD, Khan  KM, Maffulli  N.  Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies.  Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000;10(1):2-11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    14.
    Steinberg  EL, Elis  J, Steinberg  Y, Salai  M, Ben-Tov  T.  A double-plating approach to distal femur fracture: a clinical study.  Injury. 2017;48(10):2260-2265. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.07.025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society.  Are locking constructs in distal femoral fractures always best: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the less invasive stabilization system with the minimally invasive dynamic condylar screw system.  J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(1):e1-e6. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000450PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Padha  K, Singh  S, Ghani  A, Dang  H.  Distal femur fractures and its treatment with distal femur locking plate.  JK Science. 2016;18(2):76-80.Google Scholar
    17.
    Virk  JS, Garg  SK, Gupta  P, Jangira  V, Singh  J, Rana  S.  Distal femur locking plate: the answer to all distal femoral fractures.  J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(10):RC01-RC05.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    18.
    Gill  S, Mittal  A, Raj  M, Singh  P, Singh  J, Kumar  S.  Extra articular supracondylar femur fractures managed with locked distal femoral plate or supracondylar nailing: a comparative outcome study.  J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(5):RC19-RC23. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2017/25062.9936PubMedGoogle Scholar
    19.
    Kim  J-W, Oh  C-W, Kyung  H-S, Min  W-K, Yoon  S-H.  Factors affecting the results of distal femoral fractures treated by retrograde intramedullary nailing.  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2009;23(11):1311-1315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    20.
    Kolb  W, Guhlmann  H, Windisch  C, Marx  F, Kolb  K, Koller  H.  Fixation of distal femoral fractures with the less invasive stabilization system: a minimally invasive treatment with locked fixed-angle screws.  J Trauma. 2008;65(6):1425-1434. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e318166d24aPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Rademakers  MV, Kerkhoffs  GMMJ, Sierevelt  IN, Raaymakers  ELFB, Marti  RK.  Intra-articular fractures of the distal femur: a long-term follow-up study of surgically treated patients.  J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(4):213-219. doi:10.1097/00005131-200404000-00004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Southeast Fracture Consortium.  LCP Versus LISS in the treatment of open and closed distal femur fractures: does it make a difference?  J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(6):e212-e216. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000507PubMedGoogle Scholar
    23.
    Handolin  L, Pajarinen  J, Lindahl  J, Hirvensalo  E.  Retrograde intramedullary nailing in distal femoral fractures: results in a series of 46 consecutive operations.  Injury. 2004;35(5):517-522. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(03)00191-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Gao  K, Gao  W, Huang  J,  et al.  Retrograde nailing versus locked plating of extra-articular distal femoral fractures: comparison of 36 cases.  Med Princ Pract. 2013;22(2):161-166. doi:10.1159/000342664PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Schandelmaier  P, Krettek  C, Miclau  T, Stephan  C, Könemann  B, Tscherne  H.  Stabilization of distal femoral fractures using the LISS.  Tech Orthop. 1999;14(3):230-246. doi:10.1097/00013611-199909000-00009Google ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Kayali  C, Agus  H, Turgut  A.  Successful results of minimally invasive surgery for comminuted supracondylar femoral fractures with LISS: comparative study of multiply injured and isolated femoral fractures.  J Orthop Sci. 2007;12(5):458-465. doi:10.1007/s00776-007-1156-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Kolb  K, Grützner  P, Koller  H, Windisch  C, Marx  F, Kolb  W.  The condylar plate for treatment of distal femoral fractures: a long-term follow-up study.  Injury. 2009;40(4):440-448. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2008.08.046PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Kregor  PJ, Stannard  JA, Zlowodzki  M, Cole  PA.  Treatment of distal femur fractures using the less invasive stabilization system: surgical experience and early clinical results in 103 fractures.  J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(8):509-520. doi:10.1097/00005131-200409000-00006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Schütz  M, Müller  M, Regazzoni  P,  et al.  Use of the less invasive stabilization system (LISS) in patients with distal femoral (AO33) fractures: a prospective multicenter study.  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005;125(2):102-108. doi:10.1007/s00402-004-0779-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Ran  T, Hua  X, Zhenyu  Z,  et al.  Floating knee: a modified Fraser’s classification and the results of a series of 28 cases.  Injury. 2013;44(8):1033-1042. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2012.12.012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Parekh  AA, Smith  WR, Silva  S,  et al.  Treatment of distal femur and proximal tibia fractures with external fixation followed by planned conversion to internal fixation.  J Trauma. 2008;64(3):736-739. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e31804d492bPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Kadar  A, Sherman  H, Drexler  M, Katz  E, Steinberg  EL.  Anchor suture fixation of distal pole fractures of patella: twenty seven cases and comparison to partial patellectomy.  Int Orthop. 2016;40(1):149-154. doi:10.1007/s00264-015-2776-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Böstman  O, Kiviluoto  O, Nirhamo  J.  Comminuted displaced fractures of the patella.  Injury. 1981;13(3):196-202. doi:10.1016/0020-1383(81)90238-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Smith  ST, Cramer  KE, Karges  DE, Watson  JT, Moed  BR.  Early complications in the operative treatment of patella fractures.  J Orthop Trauma. 1997;11(3):183-187. doi:10.1097/00005131-199704000-00008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Hsu  K-L, Chang  W-L, Yang  C-Y, Yeh  M-L, Chang  C-W.  Factors affecting the outcomes of modified tension band wiring techniques in transverse patellar fractures.  Injury. 2017;48(12):2800-2806. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.10.016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Torchia  ME, Lewallen  DG.  Open fractures of the patella.  J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10(6):403-409. doi:10.1097/00005131-199608000-00007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Anand  S, Hahnel  JCR, Giannoudis  PV.  Open patellar fractures: high energy injuries with a poor outcome?  Injury. 2008;39(4):480-484. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2007.10.032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Wu  CC, Tai  CL, Chen  WJ.  Patellar tension band wiring: a revised technique.  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2001;121(1-2):12-16. doi:10.1007/s004020000183PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Uvaraj  NR, Mayil Vahanan  N, Sivaseelam  A, Mohd Sameer  M, Basha  IM.  Surgical management of neglected fractures of the patella.  Injury. 2007;38(8):979-983. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2007.02.025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Wu  D, Reng  G, Shrivastava  A, Yu  Y, Zhang  Y, Peng  C.  A useful surgical strategy for proximal tibial fractures (AO/OTA type 41-C) with diaphyseal involvement.  Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(8):13455-13463.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    41.
    Phisitkul  P, McKinley  TO, Nepola  JV, Marsh  JL.  Complications of locking plate fixation in complex proximal tibia injuries.  J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(2):83-91. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e318030df96PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Oh  C-W, Oh  J-K, Kyung  H-S,  et al.  Double plating of unstable proximal tibial fractures using minimally invasive percutaneous osteosynthesis technique.  Acta Orthop. 2006;77(3):524-530. doi:10.1080/17453670610012548PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Zhang  J, Ebraheim  N, Li  M,  et al.  External fixation using femoral less invasive stabilization system plate in tibial proximal metaphyseal fracture.  Clin Orthop Surg. 2015;7(1):8-14. doi:10.4055/cios.2015.7.1.8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Singh  H, Misra  RK, Kaur  M.  Management of proximal tibia fractures using wire based circular external fixator.  J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(9):RC01-RC04. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2015/15626.6513PubMedGoogle Scholar
    45.
    Luo  C-F, Jiang  R, Hu  C-F, Zeng  B-F.  Medial double-plating for fracture dislocations involving the proximal tibia.  Knee. 2006;13(5):389-394. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2006.05.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    46.
    Jöckel  JA, Erhardt  J, Vincenti  M,  et al.  Minimally invasive and open surgical treatment of proximal tibia fractures using a polyaxial locking plate system: a prospective multi-centre study.  Int Orthop. 2013;37(4):701-708. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-1820-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    47.
    Kim  J-W, Oh  C-W, Jung  WJ, Kim  JS.  Minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis for open fractures of the proximal tibia.  Clin Orthop Surg. 2012;4(4):313-320. doi:10.4055/cios.2012.4.4.313PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Nikolaou  VS, Tan  HB, Haidukewych  G, Kanakaris  N, Giannoudis  PV.  Proximal tibial fractures: early experience using polyaxial locking-plate technology.  Int Orthop. 2011;35(8):1215-1221. doi:10.1007/s00264-010-1153-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    49.
    Parkkinen  M, Madanat  R, Lindahl  J, Mäkinen  TJ.  Risk factors for deep infection following plate fixation of proximal tibial fractures.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(15):1292-1297. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.00894PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    50.
    Egol  KA, Tejwani  NC, Capla  EL, Wolinsky  PL, Koval  KJ.  Staged management of high-energy proximal tibia fractures (OTA types 41): the results of a prospective, standardized protocol.  J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(7):448-455. doi:10.1097/01.bot.0000171881.11205.80PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    51.
    Boldin  C, Fankhauser  F, Hofer  HP, Szyszkowitz  R.  Three-year results of proximal tibia fractures treated with the LISS.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;445(445):222-229.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    52.
    Cole  PA, Zlowodzki  M, Kregor  PJ.  Treatment of proximal tibia fractures using the less invasive stabilization system: surgical experience and early clinical results in 77 fractures.  J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(8):528-535. doi:10.1097/00005131-200409000-00008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    53.
    Jiang  R, Luo  C-F, Wang  M-C, Yang  T-Y, Zeng  B-F.  A comparative study of Less Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) fixation and two-incision double plating for the treatment of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  Knee. 2008;15(2):139-143. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2007.12.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    54.
    Yao  Y, Lv  H, Zan  J,  et al.  A comparison of lateral fixation versus dual plating for simple bicondylar fractures.  Knee. 2015;22(3):225-229. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2015.02.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    55.
    Gross  J-B, Gavanier  B, Belleville  R, Coudane  H, Mainard  D.  Advantages of external hybrid fixators for treating Schatzker V-VI tibial plateau fractures: a retrospective study of 40 cases.  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103(6):965-970. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2017.05.023PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    56.
    Xu  Y-Q, Li  Q, Shen  T-G, Su  P-H, Zhu  Y-Z.  An efficacy analysis of surgical timing and procedures for high-energy complex tibial plateau fractures.  Orthop Surg. 2013;5(3):188-195. doi:10.1111/os.12057PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    57.
    Abghari  M, Marcano  A, Davidovitch  R, Konda  SR, Egol  KA.  Are locked plates needed for split depression tibial plateau fractures?  J Knee Surg. 2016;29(6):482-486. doi:10.1055/s-0035-1567872PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    58.
    Chan  Y-S, Yuan  L-J, Hung  S-S,  et al.  Arthroscopic-assisted reduction with bilateral buttress plate fixation of complex tibial plateau fractures.  Arthroscopy. 2003;19(9):974-984. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2003.09.038PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    59.
    Ali  AM, Yang  L, Hashmi  M, Saleh  M.  Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures managed with the Sheffield hybrid fixator: biomechanical study and operative technique.  Injury. 2001;32(suppl 4):SD86-SD91. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(01)00165-6PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    60.
    Stamer  DT, Schenk  R, Staggers  B, Aurori  K, Aurori  B, Behrens  FF.  Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with a hybrid ring external fixator: a preliminary study.  J Orthop Trauma. 1994;8(6):455-461. doi:10.1097/00005131-199412000-00001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    61.
    Ferreira  N, Marais  LC.  Bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with fine-wire circular external fixation.  Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2014;9(1):25-32. doi:10.1007/s11751-014-0185-zPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    62.
    Sun  H, Zhai  Q-L, Xu  Y-F, Wang  Y-K, Luo  C-F, Zhang  C-Q.  Combined approaches for fixation of Schatzker type II tibial plateau fractures involving the posterolateral column: a prospective observational cohort study.  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(2):209-221. doi:10.1007/s00402-014-2131-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    63.
    Lee  M-H, Hsu  C-J, Lin  K-C, Renn  J-H.  Comparison of outcome of unilateral locking plate and dual plating in the treatment of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:62. doi:10.1186/s13018-014-0062-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    64.
    Chan  C, Keating  J.  Comparison of outcomes of operatively treated bicondylar tibial plateau fractures by external fixation and internal fixation.  Malays Orthop J. 2012;6(1):7-12. doi:10.5704/MOJ.1203.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    65.
    Kugelman  D, Qatu  A, Haglin  J, Leucht  P, Konda  S, Egol  K.  Complications and unplanned outcomes following operative treatment of tibial plateau fractures.  Injury. 2017;48(10):2221-2229. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.07.016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    66.
    Barei  DP, Nork  SE, Mills  WJ, Henley  MB, Benirschke  SK.  Complications associated with internal fixation of high-energy bicondylar tibial plateau fractures utilizing a two-incision technique.  J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(10):649-657. doi:10.1097/00005131-200411000-00001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    67.
    Khatri  K, Sharma  V, Goyal  D, Farooque  K.  Complications in the management of closed high-energy proximal tibial plateau fractures.  Chin J Traumatol. 2016;19(6):342-347. doi:10.1016/j.cjtee.2016.08.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    68.
    Ruffolo  MR, Gettys  FK, Montijo  HE, Seymour  RB, Karunakar  MA.  Complications of high-energy bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with dual plating through 2 incisions.  J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(2):85-90. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000203PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    69.
    Shah  CM, Babb  PE, McAndrew  CM,  et al.  Definitive plates overlapping provisional external fixator pin sites: is the infection risk increased?  J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(9):518-522. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000077PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    70.
    Haller  JM, Holt  D, Rothberg  DL, Kubiak  EN, Higgins  TF.  Does early versus delayed spanning external fixation impact complication rates for high-energy tibial plateau and plafond fractures?  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(6):1436-1444. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4583-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    71.
    Ozkaya  U, Parmaksizoglu  AS.  Dual locked plating of unstable bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  Injury. 2015;46(suppl 2):S9-S13. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.025PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    72.
    Shah  SN, Karunakar  MA.  Early wound complications after operative treatment of high energy tibial plateau fractures through two incisions.  Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2007;65(2):115-119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    73.
    Chen  G, Liang  Y, Ruan  J, Chen  F, Wang  H, Zhu  G.  Effect of modified dual plating and less invasive stabilization system on the treatment of complex fractures of tibial plateau.  Biomed Res. 2018;28(22):10132-10136.Google Scholar
    74.
    Marsh  JL, Smith  ST, Do  TT.  External fixation and limited internal fixation for complex fractures of the tibial plateau.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(5):661-673. doi:10.2106/00004623-199505000-00002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    75.
    Tao  X, Chen  N, Pan  F, Cheng  B.  External fixation combined with delayed internal fixation in treatment of tibial plateau fractures with dislocation.  Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(41):e8221. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000008221PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    76.
    Stannard  JP, Wilson  TC, Volgas  DA, Alonso  JE.  Fracture stabilization of proximal tibial fractures with the proximal tibial LISS: early experience in Birmingham, Alabama (USA).  Injury. 2003;34(suppl 1):A36-A42. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(03)00256-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    77.
    van den Berg  J, Reul  M, Nunes Cardozo  M,  et al.  Functional outcome of intra-articular tibial plateau fractures: the impact of posterior column fractures.  Int Orthop. 2017;41(9):1865-1873. doi:10.1007/s00264-017-3566-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    78.
    Prasad  GT, Kumar  TS, Kumar  RK, Murthy  GK, Sundaram  N.  Functional outcome of Schatzker type V and VI tibial plateau fractures treated with dual plates.  Indian J Orthop. 2013;47(2):188-194. doi:10.4103/0019-5413.108915PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    79.
    Yao  Y, Lv  H, Zan  J, Li  J, Zhu  N, Jing  J.  Functional outcomes of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with dual buttress plates and risk factors: a case series.  Injury. 2014;45(12):1980-1984. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    80.
    Barei  DP, Nork  SE, Mills  WJ, Coles  CP, Henley  MB, Benirschke  SK.  Functional outcomes of severe bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with dual incisions and medial and lateral plates.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(8):1713-1721. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00907PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    81.
    Babis  GC, Evangelopoulos  DS, Kontovazenitis  P, Nikolopoulos  K, Soucacos  PN.  High energy tibial plateau fractures treated with hybrid external fixation.  J Orthop Surg Res. 2011;6:35. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-6-35PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    82.
    Keightley  AJ, Nawaz  SZ, Jacob  JT, Unnithan  A, Elliott  DS, Khaleel  A.  Ilizarov management of Schatzker IV to VI fractures of the tibial plateau: 105 fractures at a mean follow-up of 7.8 years.  Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B(12):1693-1697. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B12.34635PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    83.
    Ma  Q, Aierxiding  A, Wang  G, Wang  C, Yu  L, Shen  Z.  Incidence and risk factors for deep surgical site infection after open reduction and internal fixation of closed tibial plateau fractures in adults.  Int Wound J. 2018;15(2):237-242. doi:10.1111/iwj.12856PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    84.
    Zhu  Y, Liu  S, Zhang  X, Chen  W, Zhang  Y.  Incidence and risks for surgical site infection after adult tibial plateau fractures treated by ORIF: a prospective multicentre study.  Int Wound J. 2017;14(6):982-988. doi:10.1111/iwj.12743PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    85.
    Laible  C, Earl-Royal  E, Davidovitch  R, Walsh  M, Egol  KA.  Infection after spanning external fixation for high-energy tibial plateau fractures: is pin site-plate overlap a problem?  J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(2):92-97. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e31821cfb7aPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    86.
    Meena  RC, Meena  UK, Gupta  GL, Gahlot  N, Gaba  S.  Intramedullary nailing versus proximal plating in the management of closed extra-articular proximal tibial fracture: a randomized controlled trial.  J Orthop Traumatol. 2015;16(3):203-208. doi:10.1007/s10195-014-0332-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    87.
    Borade  A, Kempegowda  H, Richard  R, Graham  J, Suk  M, Horwitz  DS.  Is “early total care” a safe and effective alternative to “staged protocol” for the treatment of Schatzker IV-VI tibial plateau fractures in patients older than 50 years?  J Orthop Trauma. 2017;31(12):e400-e406. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000995PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    88.
    Maroto  MD, Scolaro  JA, Henley  MB, Dunbar  RP.  Management and incidence of tibial tubercle fractures in bicondylar fractures of the tibial plateau.  Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(12):1697-1702. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B12.32016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    89.
    Jansen  H, Frey  SP, Doht  S, Fehske  K, Meffert  RH.  Medium-term results after complex intra-articular fractures of the tibial plateau.  J Orthop Sci. 2013;18(4):569-577. doi:10.1007/s00776-013-0404-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    90.
    van Dreumel  RLM, van Wunnik  BPW, Janssen  L, Simons  PCG, Janzing  HMJ.  Mid- to long-term functional outcome after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures.  Injury. 2015;46(8):1608-1612. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.035PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    91.
    Giannetti  S, Bizzotto  N, Stancati  A, Santucci  A.  Minimally invasive fixation in tibial plateau fractures using an pre-operative and intra-operative real size 3D printing.  Injury. 2017;48(3):784-788. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2016.11.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    92.
    Ariffin  HM, Mahdi  NM, Rhani  SA, Baharudin  A, Shukur  MH.  Modified hybrid fixator for high-energy Schatzker V and VI tibial plateau fractures.  Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2011;6(1):21-26. doi:10.1007/s11751-011-0105-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    93.
    Zhai  Q, Hu  C, Luo  C.  Multi-plate reconstruction for severe bicondylar tibial plateau fractures of young adults.  Int Orthop. 2014;38(5):1031-1035. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2211-zPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    94.
    Rademakers  MV, Kerkhoffs  GMMJ, Sierevelt  IN, Raaymakers  ELFB, Marti  RK.  Operative treatment of 109 tibial plateau fractures: five- to 27-year follow-up results.  J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(1):5-10. doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e31802c5b51PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    95.
    Su  EP, Westrich  GH, Rana  AJ, Kapoor  K, Helfet  DL.  Operative treatment of tibial plateau fractures in patients older than 55 years.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(421):240-248. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000119247.60317.bcPubMedGoogle Scholar
    96.
    Giordano  V, do Amaral  NP, Koch  HA, E Albuquerque  RP, de Souza  FS, Dos Santos Neto  JF.  Outcome evaluation of staged treatment for bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  Injury. 2017;48(suppl 4):S34-S40. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(17)30773-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    97.
    Ali  AM.  Outcomes of open bicondylar tibial plateau fractures treated with Ilizarov external fixator with or without minimal internal fixation.  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2013;23(3):349-355. doi:10.1007/s00590-012-0989-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    98.
    Colman  M, Wright  A, Gruen  G, Siska  P, Pape  H-C, Tarkin  I.  Prolonged operative time increases infection rate in tibial plateau fractures.  Injury. 2013;44(2):249-252. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2012.10.032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    99.
    Urruela  AM, Davidovitch  R, Karia  R, Khurana  S, Egol  KA.  Results following operative treatment of tibial plateau fractures.  J Knee Surg. 2013;26(3):161-165. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1324807PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    100.
    Conserva  V, Vicenti  G, Allegretti  G,  et al.  Retrospective review of tibial plateau fractures treated by two methods without staging.  Injury. 2015;46(10):1951-1956. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.07.018PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    101.
    Momaya  AM, Hlavacek  J, Etier  B,  et al.  Risk factors for infection after operative fixation of Tibial plateau fractures.  Injury. 2016;47(7):1501-1505. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2016.04.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    102.
    Bertrand  ML, Pascual-López  FJ, Guerado  E.  Severe tibial plateau fractures (Schatzker V-VI): open reduction and internal fixation versus hybrid external fixation.  Injury. 2017;48(suppl 6):S81-S85. doi:10.1016/S0020-1383(17)30799-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    103.
    Gosling  T, Schandelmaier  P, Muller  M, Hankemeier  S, Wagner  M, Krettek  C. Single lateral locked screw plating of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;439:207-214.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    104.
    Kataria  H, Sharma  N, Kanojia  RK.  Small wire external fixation for high-energy tibial plateau fractures.  J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2007;15(2):137-143. doi:10.1177/230949900701500202PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    105.
    Bagherifard  A, Jabalameli  M, Hadi  H,  et al.  Surgical management of tibial plateau fractures with 3.5 mm simple plates.  Trauma Mon. 2016;21(2):e26733. doi:10.5812/traumamon.26733PubMedGoogle Scholar
    106.
    Lin  S, Mauffrey  C, Hammerberg  EM, Stahel  PF, Hak  DJ.  Surgical site infection after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures.  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24(5):797-803. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1252-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    107.
    Dubina  AG, Paryavi  E, Manson  TT, Allmon  C, O’Toole  RV.  Surgical site infection in tibial plateau fractures with ipsilateral compartment syndrome.  Injury. 2017;48(2):495-500. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2016.10.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    108.
    Faldini  C, Manca  M, Pagkrati  S,  et al.  Surgical treatment of complex tibial plateau fractures by closed reduction and external fixation: a review of 32 consecutive cases operated.  J Orthop Traumatol. 2005;6(4):188-193. doi:10.1007/s10195-005-0107-4Google ScholarCrossref
    109.
    Stannard  JP, Wilson  TC, Volgas  DA, Alonso  JE.  The less invasive stabilization system in the treatment of complex fractures of the tibial plateau: short-term results.  J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(8):552-558. doi:10.1097/00005131-200409000-00012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    110.
    Ahearn  N, Oppy  A, Halliday  R,  et al.  The outcome following fixation of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures.  Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(7):956-962. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B7.32837PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    111.
    Bobic  V, O’Dwyer  KJ.  Tibial plateau fractures: the arthroscopic option.  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1993;1(3-4):239-242. doi:10.1007/BF01560217PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    112.
    Russell  N, Tamblyn  P, Jaarsma  R.  Tibial plateau fractures treated with plate fixation: to lock or not to lock.  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2008;19(2):75. doi:10.1007/s00590-008-0372-zGoogle ScholarCrossref
    113.
    Lee  JA, Papadakis  SA, Moon  C, Zalavras  CG.  Tibial plateau fractures treated with the less invasive stabilisation system.  Int Orthop. 2007;31(3):415-418. doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0176-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    114.
    Manidakis  N, Dosani  A, Dimitriou  R, Stengel  D, Matthews  S, Giannoudis  P.  Tibial plateau fractures: functional outcome and incidence of osteoarthritis in 125 cases.  Int Orthop. 2010;34(4):565-570. doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0790-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    115.
    Biggi  F, Di Fabio  S, D’Antimo  C, Trevisani  S.  Tibial plateau fractures: internal fixation with locking plates and the MIPO technique.  Injury. 2010;41(11):1178-1182. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2010.08.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    116.
    Zura  RD, Adams  SB  Jr, Jeray  KJ, Obremskey  WT, Stinnett  SS, Olson  SA; Southeastern Fracture Consortium Foundation.  Timing of definitive fixation of severe tibial plateau fractures with compartment syndrome does not have an effect on the rate of infection.  J Trauma. 2010;69(6):1523-1526. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181d40403PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    117.
    Tang  X, Liu  L, Tu  C-Q,  et al.  Timing of internal fixation and effect on Schatzker IV-VI tibial plateau fractures.  Chin J Traumatol. 2012;15(2):81-85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    118.
    Kumar  A, Whittle  AP.  Treatment of complex (Schatzker type VI) fractures of the tibial plateau with circular wire external fixation: retrospective case review.  J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14(5):339-344. doi:10.1097/00005131-200006000-00006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    119.
    Egol  KA, Su  E, Tejwani  NC, Sims  SH, Kummer  FJ, Koval  KJ.  Treatment of complex tibial plateau fractures using the less invasive stabilization system plate: clinical experience and a laboratory comparison with double plating.  J Trauma. 2004;57(2):340-346. doi:10.1097/01.TA.0000112326.09272.13PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    120.
    Dendrinos  GK, Kontos  S, Katsenis  D, Dalas  A.  Treatment of high-energy tibial plateau fractures by the Ilizarov circular fixator.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(5):710-717. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.78B5.0780710PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    121.
    Gaunder  CL, Zhao  Z, Henderson  C, McKinney  BR, Stahel  PF, Zelle  BA.  Wound complications after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fractures in the elderly: a multicentre study.  Int Orthop. 2019;43(2):461-465. doi:10.1007/s00264-018-3940-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    122.
    Shao  J, Chang  H, Zhu  Y,  et al.  Incidence and risk factors for surgical site infection after open reduction and internal fixation of tibial plateau fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Int J Surg. 2017;41:176-182. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.03.085PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    123.
    Yoon  RS, Bible  J, Marcus  MS,  et al.  Outcomes following combined intramedullary nail and plate fixation for complex tibia fractures: a multi-centre study.  Injury. 2015;46(6):1097-1101. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.03.019PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    124.
    Iliopoulos  E, Morrissey  N, Cho  S, Khaleel  A.  Outcomes of the Ilizarov frame use in elderly patients.  J Orthop Sci. 2017;22(4):783-786. doi:10.1016/j.jos.2017.03.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    125.
    Singh  K, Bauer  JM, LaChaud  GY, Bible  JE, Mir  HR.  Surgical site infection in high-energy peri-articular tibia fractures with intra-wound vancomycin powder: a retrospective pilot study.  J Orthop Traumatol. 2015;16(4):287-291. doi:10.1007/s10195-015-0352-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    126.
    Lovisetti  G, Vulcano  E, Bettella  L, Tasarib  R, Tondolo  T, Sala  F.  Treatment with circular external fixation of bicondylar tibial fractures: potential in accurate reduction and efficacy on functional results.  J Knee Surg. 2018;31(5):459-466. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1604139PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    127.
    Scott  J, Checketts  JX, Horn  JG, Cooper  C, Vassar  M.  “Knee osteoarthritis and current research for evidence: are we on the right way?”.  Int Orthop. 2018;42(9):2105-2112. doi:10.1007/s00264-018-3932-9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    128.
    Checketts  JX, Scott  J, Gordon  J,  et al.  An evaluation of the rotator cuff repair research pipeline.  Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(11):2325967118805731. doi:10.1177/2325967118805731PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    129.
    Checketts  JX, Sims  MT, Detweiler  B, Middlemist  K, Jones  J, Vassar  M.  An evaluation of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registry requirements among orthopaedic surgery journals.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(3):e15. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.00529PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    130.
    Checketts  JX, Scott  JT, Meyer  C, Horn  J, Jones  J, Vassar  M.  The robustness of trials that guide evidence-based orthopaedic surgery.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(12):e85. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.01039PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×