Comparison between tension band and cerclage with X-Plate and lag screws in treatment of comminuted patellar fractures

BackgroundComminuted patellar fractures are not rare, and the ideal treatment method remains controversial. The present study was conducted to evaluate effects and compare complications of two different methods used to treat comminuted patellar fractures.MethodsFrom March 2010 to August 2016, 102 cases of 34-C2 or 34-C3 comminuted patellar fractures were treated at our hospital, wherein patients received two different treatments: titanium cable tension band with cerclage method (group A) and intrafragmentary screws with X-shaped plating technique (group B). At follow-ups, articular step-off, range of motion (ROM), Lysholm scores, time of union, and complications were recorded and analyzed. Radiographic and clinical data as well as rate of complications were statistically analyzed.ResultsIn total, 87 patients were included in the final analysis (n = 47 in group A and n = 40 in group B). No significant differences were noted in terms of cost of implant, age, gender, rate of 34-C3 fractures, rate of layered inferior pole fractures, postoperative articular step-off and union time. At 2-year follow-up, average Lysholm scores, ROM and rate of complications were (89.0 ± 4.5), (122°±12°) and (27.7%) in group A and (90.2 ± 3.9), (124°±11°) and (17.5%) in group B, respectively, with no significant differences (p > 0.05). The mean time of surgery in group B was shorter than that in group A with significant difference (p < 0.05).ConclusionsTreatment using the intrafragmentary screws and plate method for amenable comminuted patellar fractures achieved similar complication rate and favorable functional outcomes at the 2-year follow-up, which was comparable to the titanium cable tension band with cerclage method. Thus, the intrafragmentary screws and plate method is effective, safe and convenient for 34-C2/C3 comminuted patellar fractures, especially appropriate for patients with layered fragments.     

Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.