AIM To systemically review all studies reporting return to sport following tibial plateau fracture, in order to provide information on return rates and times to sport, and to assess variations in sporting outcome for ...AIM To systemically review all studies reporting return to sport following tibial plateau fracture, in order to provide information on return rates and times to sport, and to assess variations in sporting outcome for different treatment methods.METHODS A systematic search of CINAHAL, Cochrane, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PEDro, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science was performed in January 2017 using the keywords "tibial", "plateau", "fractures", "knee", "athletes", "sports", "non-operative", "conservative", "operative", "return to sport". All studies which recorded return rates and times to sport following tibial plateau fractures were included. RESULTS Twenty-seven studies were included: 1 was a randomised controlled trial, 7 were prospective cohort studies, 16 were retrospective cohort studies, 3 were case series. One study reported on the outcome of conservative management(n = 3); 27 reported on the outcome of surgical management(n = 917). Nine studies reported on Open Reduction Internal Fixation(ORIF)(n = 193), 11 on Arthroscopic-Assisted Reduction Internal Fixation(ARIF)(n = 253) and 7 on Frame-Assisted Fixation(FRAME)(n = 262). All studies recorded "return to sport"rates. Only one study recorded a "return to sport" time. The return rate to sport for the total cohort was 70%. For the conservatively-managed fractures, the return rate was 100%. For the surgically-managed fractures, the return rate was 70%. For fractures managed with ORIF, the return rate was 60%. For fractures managed with ARIF, the return rate was 83%. For fractures managed with FRAME was 52%. The return rate for ARIF was found to be significantly greater than that for ORIF(OR 3.22, 95%CI: 2.09-4.97, P < 0.001) and for FRAME(OR 4.33, 95%CI: 2.89-6.50, P < 0.001). No difference was found between the return rates for ORIF and FRAME(OR 1.35, 95%CI: 0.92-1.96, P = 0.122). The recorded return time was 6.9 mo(median), from a study reporting on ORIF.CONCLUSION Return rates to sport for tibial plateau fractures remain limited compared to other fractures. ARIF provides the best return rates. There is limited data regarding return times to sport. Further research is required to determine return times to sport, and to improve return rates to sport, through treatment and rehabilitation optimisation.展开更多
文摘AIM To systemically review all studies reporting return to sport following tibial plateau fracture, in order to provide information on return rates and times to sport, and to assess variations in sporting outcome for different treatment methods.METHODS A systematic search of CINAHAL, Cochrane, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, PEDro, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science was performed in January 2017 using the keywords "tibial", "plateau", "fractures", "knee", "athletes", "sports", "non-operative", "conservative", "operative", "return to sport". All studies which recorded return rates and times to sport following tibial plateau fractures were included. RESULTS Twenty-seven studies were included: 1 was a randomised controlled trial, 7 were prospective cohort studies, 16 were retrospective cohort studies, 3 were case series. One study reported on the outcome of conservative management(n = 3); 27 reported on the outcome of surgical management(n = 917). Nine studies reported on Open Reduction Internal Fixation(ORIF)(n = 193), 11 on Arthroscopic-Assisted Reduction Internal Fixation(ARIF)(n = 253) and 7 on Frame-Assisted Fixation(FRAME)(n = 262). All studies recorded "return to sport"rates. Only one study recorded a "return to sport" time. The return rate to sport for the total cohort was 70%. For the conservatively-managed fractures, the return rate was 100%. For the surgically-managed fractures, the return rate was 70%. For fractures managed with ORIF, the return rate was 60%. For fractures managed with ARIF, the return rate was 83%. For fractures managed with FRAME was 52%. The return rate for ARIF was found to be significantly greater than that for ORIF(OR 3.22, 95%CI: 2.09-4.97, P < 0.001) and for FRAME(OR 4.33, 95%CI: 2.89-6.50, P < 0.001). No difference was found between the return rates for ORIF and FRAME(OR 1.35, 95%CI: 0.92-1.96, P = 0.122). The recorded return time was 6.9 mo(median), from a study reporting on ORIF.CONCLUSION Return rates to sport for tibial plateau fractures remain limited compared to other fractures. ARIF provides the best return rates. There is limited data regarding return times to sport. Further research is required to determine return times to sport, and to improve return rates to sport, through treatment and rehabilitation optimisation.
