Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Rehabilitation for tibial plateau fractures in adults

a scoping review protocol

Phan, Tri M.1; Arnold, John2; Solomon, Lucian B.1,3

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports: October 2017 - Volume 15 - Issue 10 - p 2437–2444
doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-002949
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOLS
Free

Review objective: Based on the observation that rehabilitation practices for tibial plateau fractures are inconsistent and lack uniformity in the published literature, this scoping review will seek to identify all relevant studies that have reported on rehabilitation for tibial plateau fractures in order to comprehensively map the characteristics of the practices. This scoping review will then be used to identify commonalities across the included studies in order to identify potential focus questions for subsequent systematic reviews.

1Trauma and Orthopedics Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

2School of Health Sciences and Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

3Discipline of Orthopaedics and Trauma, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

Correspondence: Tri M. Phan, phanminhtri.md@gmail.com

There is no conflict of interest in this project.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Background

Tibial plateau fractures (TPFs) which involve the proximal tibia in its articular and meta-epiphyseal segments are one of the commonest intra-articular fractures, representing approximately 1% of all fractures in adults.1-3 These fractures are caused mainly by axial loading with concomitant varus/valgus or flexion/extension bending, and have various morphology involving the lateral, medial or both tibial condyles with many degrees of articular depression widening and angulation.4-7 Tibial plateau fractures are frequently complex intra-articular injuries with a variety of fracture patterns, portending a poor prognosis due to associated complications, i.e. compartment syndrome, cartilage destruction, soft-tissue envelope damage, post-surgery infection, knee instability or stiffness, and post-traumatic osteoarthritis.8-11 As such, they are managed mainly in hospital settings, and they not only pose challenges for the surgeon,12,13 but also have an enormous impact on patients and devastating socio-economic consequences due to the time taken off work for the patient and impaired functional integrity of the knee.14-17

Achieving fracture reduction and stabilization is only the initial step; good postoperative rehabilitation is necessary as early mobilization may limit complications following intra-articular fractures, including knee joint stiffness, muscle and bone atrophy, synovial adhesions and capsular contractions to adversely impact on outcomes.18-22 However, there is no consensus about rehabilitation practices as immobilization and protection from weight bearing varies widely among orthopedic surgeons.

There is confusion as to whether range of motion exercises should be passive, active assisted or active in nature.23 While some authors have recommended passive exercises immediately postoperatively,24-26 after the second postoperative day27 or once wounds were sealed and dry,28 others considered immediate active motion protected in a hinged knee orthosis,29 or never employed continuous passive motion regime for their patients.29 In addition, there is large variation regarding the immobilization time, ranging from 10 days30 to six weeks postoperatively.28,31,32

Regarding weight bearing after TPFs fixation, there remains confusion in the rehabilitation practices with recommendations varying from no weight bearing from four to 12 weeks,8,25,26,28,33 partial weight bearing from six to 12 weeks,24,29,30,34,35 partial weight bearing prescribed on an individual basis,36 full weight bearing from nine to 12 weeks postoperatively,29,30,36 or when union observed on plain film is significant.37-39

While commencing weight bearing too early may increase the risk for implant failure, leading to the loss of fracture reduction and malunion,40 there is a substantial difference in energy expenditure between non and partial weight-bearing gait, impacting on patient independence and hospital length of stay.23

A preliminary search of the literature in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, CINAHL, PubMed, PROSPERO and Epistemonikos identified that no systematic or scoping review has addressed the proposed topic. Considering the lack of current evidence, together with characteristics of a scoping review in examining “the extent, range and nature of research activity … to determine the value of undertaking a full systematic review”,41(p.6) we recommend a scoping review to map the relevant literature. This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the methodology for JBI scoping reviews.42,43

Back to Top | Article Outline

Inclusion criteria

Types of participants

The review will consider studies that include patients over 16 years of age undergoing rehabilitation practices for TPFs. Patients under 16 will be excluded as many will still have open growth plates, as open growth plates fractures differ dramatically from fractures that occur at skeletal maturity.44 Studies that recruited people following periprosthetic fractures, pathological fractures or multiple fractures of the same limb will be excluded. Periprosthetic and pathological fractures will be excluded as their treatment and outcomes are preponderantly related to one of the prosthesis or neoplastic process. Cases with multiple ipsilateral lower limb fractures will be excluded as they affect the overall healing and rehabilitation of the limb.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Concepts

The review will consider all research studies that address rehabilitation practices for TPFs in adults including weight-bearing status, application of immobilization device (brace, cast, immobilizers), postoperative motion and exercises.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Context

The review will consider studies conducted in hospital settings.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Sources

This review will consider quantitative studies that may include, but will not be limited to, randomized, quasi-randomized controlled trials, case-control and case series studies.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Search strategy

The search strategy aims to find both published and unpublished literature. A three-step search will be utilized in each component of this review. An initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL will be undertaken followed by an analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe relevant articles. A second search using all the identified keywords and index terms will then be undertaken across all included databases. Third, the reference list of all included studies will be searched for additional studies. Studies published in English will be considered for inclusion in this review. No time limit will be imposed on studies for inclusion in this review.

The databases to be searched will include:

  • MEDLINE
  • CINAHL
  • Embase
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)
  • JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports
  • Scopus
  • PEDRO.

The search for unpublished studies will include:

  • ClinicalTrials.gov
  • International Clinical Trials Registry Platform
  • UK Clinical Trials Gateway
  • ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
  • Grey Literature (The New York Academy of Medicine)
  • Open Grey (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe)
  • MedNar
  • Trove (theses).

Initial keywords to be used will be, but will not be limited to: “tibial plateau” OR “proximal tibial” OR “knee fractures” AND “rehabilitation” OR “exercise” OR “joint loading” OR “weight bearing” OR “physical therapy” OR “knee function” OR “scoping review”.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Data extraction

A data extraction form for this scoping review will be developed, based on those from JBI SUMARI (a draft of the adapted form is shown in Appendix I) as well as discussion among all reviewers. The reported variables will include specific details about authors, populations, study method, type of tibial plateau fractures, types of treatments, type of rehabilitation practices and duration, outcome of significance and key findings relating to the scoping review objective. This may be further refined at the review stage. Two reviewers will extract data independently. Any disagreement will be resolved by discussion with a third reviewer. The author of the primary study will be contacted if further clarification of the data is required.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Data mapping

After the data have been extracted, we will: i) map the key concepts and available evidence, ii) summarize the existing research findings, and iii) identify research gaps in the existing literature. The key findings will be mapped and presented in formats reflecting the objectives of this scoping review as appropriate (diagrammatic, tabular summary or descriptive format). The process will be further refined toward the end of the review when reviewers have the greatest awareness of the contents of the included studies.42

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

Tri M. Phan is supported by an Endeavour Executive Fellowship from the Australian Government.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Appendix I: Data extraction instrument

Data extraction form (tick where applicable)

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Ravindran B, Babu BK, Rallapalli R, Shaik MV. An outcome of surgical management of the tibial plateau fractures. Int J Health Allied Sci 2014; 3 2:110–114.
2. Moore TM, Patzakis MJ, Harvey JP. Tibial plateau fractures: definition, demographics, treatment rationale, and longterm results of closed traction management or operative reduction. J Orthop Trauma 1987; 1 2:97–119.
3. Lansinger O, Bergman B, Korner L, Anderson GBJ. Tibial condylar fractures: a twenty-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg 1986; 68 1:13–19.
4. Fenton P, Porter K. Tibial plateau fractures: A review. Trauma 2011; 13 3:181–187.
5. Koval KJ, Helfet DL. Tibial plateau fractures: Evaluation and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1995; 3 2:86–94.
6. Booth FW. Physiologic and biochemical effects of immobilization on muscle. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; 219:15–20.
7. Blakemore ME. Fractures of the tibial plateau. Trauma 1999; 1:235–243.
8. Gaston P, Will EM, Keating JF. Recovery of knee function following fracture of the tibial plateau. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2005; 87 9:1233–1236.
9. Gardner MJ, Yacoubian S, Geller D, Pode M, Mintz D, Helfet DL, et al. Prediction of soft-tissue injuries in Schatzker II tibial plateau fractures based on measurements of plain radiographs. J Trauma 2006; 60 2:319–323.
10. Stevens DG, Beharry R, McKee MD, Waddell JP, Schemitsch EH. The long-term functional outcome of operatively treated tibial plateau fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2001; 15 5:312–320.
11. Houben PFJ, Linden ESvd, Wildenberg FAJMvd, Stapert JWJL. Functional and radiological outcome after intra-articular tibial plateau fractures. Injury 1997; 28 7:459–462.
12. Biggi F, Fabio SD, D’Antimo C, Trevisani S. Tibial plateau fractures: Internal fixation with locking plates and the MIPO technique. Injury, Int J Care Injured 2010; 41 11:1178–1182.
13. Elsoe R, Larsen P, Shekhrajka N, Ferreira L, Ostgaard SE, Rasmussen S. The outcome after lateral tibial plateau fracture treated with percutaneus screw fixation show a tendency towards worse functional outcome compared with a reference population. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2016; 42 2:177–184.
14. Chen HW, Liu GD, Wu LJ. Clinical and radiological outcomes following arthroscopic-assisted management of tibial plateau fractures: A systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 12:3464–3472.
15. Honkonen SE. Degenerative arthritis after tibial plateau fractures. J Orthop Trauma 1995; 9 4:273–277.
16. Kraus TM, Martetschlager F, Muller D, Braun KF, Ahrens P, Siebenlist S, et al. Return to sports activity after tibial plateau fractures 89 cases with minimum 24-month follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 12:2845–2852.
17. 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.
18. Cole PA, Zlowodzki M, Kregor PJ. Less invasive stabilization system (LISS) for fractures of the proximal tibia: Indications, surgical technique and preliminary results of the UMC Clinical Trial. Injury 2003; 34 (Supl 1):A16–29.
19. Akeson WH, Amiel D, Abel MF, Garfin SR, Woo S-Y. Effects of immobilization in joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; 1987 219:28–37.
20. Jenkins DG, Imms FJ, Prestidge SP, Small GI. Muscle strength before and after menisectomy: A comparison of methods of post-operative management. Rheum Rehabil 1976; 15 3:153–155.
21. Narayan B, Harris C, Nayagam S. Treatment of high-energy tibial plateau fractures. Strat Traum Limb Recon 2006; 1 1:18–28.
22. Hurley MV. The effects of joint damage on muscle function, proprioception and rehabilitation. Man Ther 1997; 2 1:11–17.
23. Smith TO, Hedges C, Schankat K. A systematic review of the rehabilitation of LISS plate fixation of proximal tibial fractures. Adv Physiother 2010; 12 2:100–110.
24. Boldin C, Fankhauser F, Hofer HP, Szyszkowitz R. Three year results of proximal tibia fractures treated with LISS. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 445:222–229.
25. 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.
26. Zura RD, Browne JA, Black MD, Olson SA. Current management of high-energy tibial plateau fractures. Curr Orthop 2007; 21 3:229–235.
27. Egol KA, Kubiak EN, Fulkerson E, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ. Biomechanics of locked plates and screws. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18 8:488–493.
28. Jiang R, Luo C-F, Zeng B-F. Biomechanical evaluation of different fixation methods for fracture dislocation involving proximal tibia. Clin Biomech 2008; 23 8:1059–1064.
29. Rossi R, Bonasia DE, Blonna D, Assom M, Castoldi F. Prospective follow-up of a simple arthroscopic-assisted technique for lateral tibial plateau fractures: Results at 5 years. The Knee 2008; 15 5:378–383.
30. Dall’Oca C, Maluta T, Lavini F, Bondi M, Micheloni GM, Bartolozzi P. Tibial plateau fractures: Compared outcomes between ARIF and ORIF. Strat Traum Limb Recon 2012; 7 3:163–175.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Ohdera T, Tokunaga M, Hiroshima S, Yoshimoto E, Tokunaga J, Kobayashi A. Arthroscopic management of tibial plateau fractures – comparison with open reduction method. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003; 123 9:489–493.
34. Ricci WM, Rudzki JR, Borrelli J. Treatment of complex proximal tibia fractures with the less invasive skeletal stabilization system. J Orthop Trauma 2004; 18 8:521–527.
35. Smith WR, Shank JR. Tibial plateau fractures: Minimally invasive fracture techniques. Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics 2001; 11 3:187–194.
36. 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.
37. 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 62:1–8.
38. Ehlinger M, Adamczewski B, Rahmé M, Adam P, Bonnomet F. Comparison of the pre-shaped anatomical locking plate of 3.5 mm versus 4. 5 mm for the treatment of tibial plateau fractures. Int Orthop 2015; 39 12:2465–2471.
39. Chin TYP, Bardana D, Bailey M, Williamson OD, Miller R, Edwards ER, et al. Functional outcome of tibial plateau fractures treated with the fine-wire fixator. Injury, Int J Care Injured 2005; 36 12:1467–1475.
40. Schütz M, Müller M, Krettek C, Hontzsch D, Regazzoni P, Haas N. Minimally invasive fracture stabilisation of distal femoral fractures with the LISS: A prospective multicenter study. Results of a clinical study with special emphasis on difficult cases. Injury 2001; 32 (Supl 3):SC3–13.
41. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8 1:19–32.
42. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Khalil H, Parker D. Aromataris E. Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2015. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2015. 1–24.
43. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015; 13 3:141–146.
44. Peterson HA. Epiphyseal growth plate fractures. Germany: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2007.
Keywords:

physical therapy; proximal tibial fractures; rehabilitation; tibial plateau fractures; weight-bearing

© 2017 by Lippincott williams & Wilkins, Inc.