↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the outcomes of cannulated screws vs. modified tension band wiring fixation techniques in the management of mildly displaced patellar fractures

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of the outcomes of cannulated screws vs. modified tension band wiring fixation techniques in the management of mildly displaced patellar fractures
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12891-015-0719-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tao Lin, Junbin Liu, Baojun Xiao, Dehao Fu, Shuhua Yang

Abstract

K wire fixation with tension band wiring has conventionally been used for the open reduction and internal fixation of the patella. However, it suffers from distinct disadvantages such as implant irritation, need for open reduction, incidence of palpable implants, and need for subsequent implant removal. A smaller incision with percutaneous fixation may be an alternative to this established conventional technique. Thus, the purpose of this trial was to compare the treatment outcomes of patients with mildly displaced patellar fractures treated with closed reduction and percutaneous cannulated screw fixation (CRCF) as compared to open reduction and tension band wiring fixation (ORTF). Specifically, we aimed to determine whether cannulated screw fixation was associated with improved clinical outcomes at 12 months as measured using the Lysholm score, pain scores, degree of flexion, range of motion, time to radiographic union, radiographic outcomes, and complication rates. Sixty-three patients with transverse patellar fractures displaced less than 8 mm were included in this prospective, randomized, controlled trial, with 52 patients in the final data analysis. Thirty-two patients were operatively treated by CRCF with either two or three cannulated screws. Thirty-one patients were operatively treated by conventional ORTF using the modified tension band technique. At postoperative intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months, knee function was evaluated using the Lysholm score, pain was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) score, and active knee extensions and flexion were measured in degrees by goniometry. The CRCF group had average Lysholm scores of 84.4 ± 5.8, 86.7 ± 6.4, and 93.2 ± 5.3 after 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively, which were significantly greater than those of the ORTF group (79.0 ± 5.3, p = 0.001; 81.5 ± 4.6, p = 0.002; and 89.8 ± 6.2, p = 0.039, respectively). Lower pain and squatting scores were the main reasons for the poorer Lysholm scores in the ORTF group. The VAS scores showed that the CRCF group had lower pain scores and better flexion and total range of motion (ROM) compared with the ORTF group after 3 and 6 months, although both groups had similar outcomes after 12 months. The mean fracture healing time of 2.65 months was similar in the CRCF groups (2.77 months; p = 0.440). Complication rates were 3/26 (11.5 %) in the CRCF group and 14/26 (53.4 %) in the ORTF group. Two patients in the CRCF group and eight patients in the ORTF group experienced skin irritation. In addition, two (7.7 %) patients in the CRCF group and 11 (42.3 %) patients in the ORTF group required implant removal because of symptoms due to the presence of the implants. Surgical treatment of mild displaced (less than 8 mm) transverse patellar fractures by the CRCF technique provides satisfactory clinical results and excellent knee function, with little pain and a low incidence of complications at early follow-up (up to 6 months). These results suggest that the CRCF technique may be a superior alternative to conventional ORTF. Registration Trial (Chinese Clinical Trial Register): Current Controlled Trials ChiCTR-PRCH-14005017, registration dates 2014-06-14.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Postgraduate 12 12%
Other 7 7%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 32 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Engineering 3 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 38 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,293,238
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3,622
of 4,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,234
of 277,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#75
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.