Importance of the Posterior Plate in Three‐Column Tibial Plateau Fractures: A Finite Element Analysis and Clinical Validation

Abstract

Objective Dual‐plate fixation was thought to be the gold standard for treating complicated bicondylar tibial plateau fractures, yet it was found to be hard to accommodate the posterior column in three‐column fractures. Currently, column‐specific fixation is becoming more and more recognized, but no comprehensive investigation has been performed to back it up. Therefore, the objective of this study was to validate the importance of posterior column fixation in the three‐column tibial fractures by a finite element (FE) analysis and clinical study. Methods In FE analysis, three models were developed: the longitudinal triple‐plate group (LTPG), the oblique triple‐plate group (OTPG), and the dual‐plate group (DPG). Three loading scenarios were simulated. The distribution of the displacement and the equivalent von Mises stress (VMS) in each structure was calculated. The comparative measurements including the maximum posterior column collapse (MPCC), the maximum total displacement of the model (MTD), the maximum VMS of cortical posterior column (MPC‐VMS), and the maximum VMS located on each group of plates and screws (MPS‐VMS). The clinical study evaluated the indicators between the groups with or without the posterior plate, including operation time, blood loss volume, full‐weight bearing period, Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Scoring system (HSS), Rasmussen score, and common postoperative complications. Results In the FE analysis, the MPCC, the MPC‐VMS, and the MTD were detected in much lower amounts in LTPG and OTPG than in DPG. In comparison with DPG, the LTPG and OTPG had larger MPS‐VMS. In the clinical study, 35 cases were included. In the triple‐plate (14) and dual‐plate (21) groups, the operation took 115.6 min and 100.5 min (p < 0.05), respectively. Blood loss in both groups was 287.0 mL and 206.6 mL (p < 0.05), and the full‐weight bearing period was 14.5 weeks and 16.2 weeks (p < 0.05). At the final follow‐up, the HSS score was 85.0 in the triple‐plate group and 77.5 in the dual‐plate (p < 0.05), the Rasmussen score was 24.1 and 21.6 (p < 0.05), there were two cases with reduction loss (9.5%) in the dual‐plate group and one case of superficial incision infection found in the triple‐plate group. Conclusion The posterior implant was beneficial in optimizing the biomechanical stability and functional outcomes in the three‐column tibial plateau fractures.

Keywords

• dual plates
• posterior column
• three columns
• tibial plateau fractures
• triple plates