- Visibility 34 Views
- Downloads 5 Downloads
- DOI 10.18231/j.ijos.2024.029
-
CrossMark
- Citation
Does 4 column classification of upper tibia fracture gives you better idea of fixation and impact on clinical outcome-analysis of 50 cases?
Introduction
Proximal tibia fractures are relatively common lower limb fractures and account for 1% of the total fractures[1] with an estimated annual incidence of 10 per 100,000 people. While these fractures are more common in men overall elderly females are more prone to experiencing them. Most proximal tibia fractures occur between ages 40 and 60 in both genders.[2]
In men, high-energy events like motor vehicle accidents are the primary cause of proximal tibial fractures. On the other hand, women often sustain these fractures through low-energy incidents such as falls during walking or cycling.[2] Low-energy injuries typically lead to one-sided depression-type fractures, while high-energy incidents can result in more complex comminuted fractures with significant damage to bone, soft tissues, and nerves.[3]
Fractures involving the proximal tibia can occur from various forces, including medial, lateral, or axial impacts. Medially directed forces, like a valgus forces are associated with classic "bumper fractures" seen in motor vehicle versus pedestrian accidents.[4] More complex mechanisms involve combination of axial, varus, or valgus forces. In many cases, both shearing and compressive forces act on the underlying tibial plateau through the femoral condyle, either medially or laterally.[5] Classification of proximal tibia fractures as per mechanism of injury has been provided below. ([Table 1])
Classification |
|
|
|
|
Varus(VR) |
1. Mild varus |
Medial condyle fracture with/without coronal split |
Valgus |
|
2. Severe varus |
Medial condyle fracture with/without coronal split |
Lateral condyle fracture |
Valgus |
|
3. Varus+Axial compression |
Medial condyle fracture with/without coronal split |
Lateral condyle subluxation with depression/split depression |
Valgus +traction |
|
Varus flexion (VRF) |
1. Mild varus |
Postero-medial condyle fracture |
Valgus + extension |
|
2. Severe varus |
Postero-medial condyle fracture |
Lateral condyle fracture |
Valgus + extension |
|
3. Varus+Axial compression |
Postero-medial condyle fracture |
Lateral condyle subluxation with depression/split depression |
Valgus + extension + traction |
|
Varus hyperextension(VRE) |
1. Mild varus |
Antero-medial condyle fracture |
Valgus + flexion |
|
2. Severe varus |
Antero-medial condyle fracture |
Lateral condyle fracture |
Valgus + flexion |
|
3. Varus+Axial compression |
Antero-medial condyle fracture |
Lateral condyle subluxation with depression/split depression |
Valgus +flexion + traction |
|
Valgus(VL) |
1. Mild valgus |
Lateral condyle depression/split depression |
Varus |
|
2. Severe valgus |
Lateral condyle depression/split depression |
Medial condyle fracture |
Varus |
|
3. Valgus+Axial compression |
Lateral condyle depression/split depresion |
Medial condyle subluxation |
Varus + traction |
|
Valgus flexion(VLF) |
1. Mild valgus |
Postero-lateral condyle fracture |
Varus + extension |
|
2. Severe valgus |
Postero-lateral condyle fracture |
Medial condyle fracture |
Varus + extension |
|
3. Valgus+Axial compression |
Postero-lateral condyle fracture |
Medial condyle subluxation |
Varus + extension + traction |
|
Valgus hyperextension(VLE) |
1. Mild valgus |
Antero-lateral condyle fracture |
Varus + flexion |
|
2. Severe valgus |
Antero-lateral condyle fracture |
Medial condyle fracture |
Varus + flexion |
|
3. Valgus+Axial compression |
Antero-lateral condyle fracture |
Medial condyle subluxation |
Varus + flexion + traction |
Over the years management protocols of proximal tibia fractures have undergone significant changes but the main goal remains the same i.e. to maintain articular congruity, mechanical axis and joint stability.
Recent advances in the field of radiology with 3d computed tomography scans and MRI have helped to better classify the complex fracture patterns and associated soft tissue injury and also decide the plan of treatment and surgical approach to be taken.
Following paper documents, a case series of 50 cases managed as per classification and functional outcomes obtained in the form of knee society score.
Management of proximal tibia fractures
Classification
Classification system of proximal tibia has changed significantly over the years since the advent of modern radiological investigations. Below are the classification systems commonly used.
Schatzker et al.[5]
The Ao/ Ota classification
Moore classification
Tscherne et al. [6]
Three-column concept of Luo and co-workers,[7] later modified by Hoekstra et al[8] ([Figure 1])
The 10- segment concept of Krause et al[9] ([Figure 2])


Diagnosis
An essential diagnostic step involves assessing soft tissue damage, classified by Tscherne and Oestern,[6] crucial for planning further treatment. For open fractures, Gustilo and Anderson's Classification is widely used.[10] Special attention is needed for compartment syndrome and potential harm to neurovascular structures, particularly in the popliteal region.
Proximal fibula involvement may affect the peroneal nerve. Compartment syndrome, especially when the fracture extends into the tibial shaft, requires immediate attention.
Conventional x-rays quickly evaluate the fracture type, while computed tomography provides detailed 2d and 3d reconstructions for complex fractures, thereby helping in classification and planning treatment. In knee dislocations with suspected arterial lesions or low ankle-brachial index (ABI), angiography is essential. MRI aids in recognizing ligament trauma and assessing intra- and extraarticular structures, enhancing diagnostic precision.
Treatment options
Various treatment options available as per fracture patterns are listed below
Conservative treatment
Arthroscopic assited reduction and internal fixation(fracturoscopy)
Closed reduction and percutaneous fixation
Definative treatment with external fixation
Open reduction internal fixation
A pictographic representation of the management of the different case scenarios encountered has been listed below.











Materials and Methods
Patient selection
All the cases of proximal tibia fractures managed surgically from year 2019 to 2022 as per 4 column and 10 segment classification irrespective of age, gender and nature of fracture.
Data collection
All proximal tibia fractures were classified as per 4 column and 10 segment classification following x-rays and 3d ct. All the possible surgical and conservative intervention possible were told to the patient and written and informed consents were taken for the same.
All the patients went through similar rehabilitation protocol. Patient related outcomes were measured at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 9 months with knee society score.
Surgical technique
The surgical approach and patient position were determined as per fracture geometry and column involvement. ([Table 2])
Classification |
Column involved |
Position |
Surgical approach |
Zero column fracture |
None |
Supine |
Minimally invasive surgery |
One-column fracture |
Lateral |
Supine |
Anterolateral approach |
Medial |
Supine |
Anteromedial approach |
|
Posterior (lateral part) |
Prone |
Lobenhoffer approach |
|
Poaterior (medial part) |
Supine |
Posteromedial approach |
|
Two-column fracture |
Lateral + medial |
Supine |
Anteromedial and anterolateral approach |
Lateral + posterior (lateral part) |
Floating |
Anterolateral + posterior reversed l shaped approach |
|
Lateral + posterior (medial part) |
Supine+ prone |
Anterolateral + posteromedial approach |
|
Medial + posterior (lateral part) |
Prone |
Posterior reversed l shaped approach |
|
Medial + posterior (medial part) |
Supine |
Posteromedial approach |
|
Three-column approach |
Medial + lateral + Posterior |
Floating |
Posterior reversed l shaped and anterolateral approach |
Results
Mean age of population sustaining proximal tibia fracture among males was 43.90 y and females was 48.71y with 86% predilection for male and 14% for female. Involvement of right tibia was 50% in comparison to left tibia which was 46%, while 4% patients had involvement of both limbs. Distribution of proximal tibia fracture; zero column -7.69%, one column- 55.77%, two column-21.15%, three column-15.38% ([Table 3]). Average knee society score(knee score, function score) at 9 months; zero column-94.25;90, one column-92.10;82.75, two column-86.63;77.28, three column-77.63;68.13. ([Table 4])
Average time for union in weeks was around 12 weeks for 21 patients and 12 to 24 weeks for 29 patients. ([Table 5])
Single incident of superficial infection was encountered managed with debridement and parenteral antibiotics. Single incident of deep infection was encountered managed with implant removal, debridement and parenteral antibiotics. Single incident of common peroneal nerve palsy was encountered repaired with extended Lobenhoffer approach.([Table 6])
General details |
No of cases |
Percentage |
Gender distribution |
|
|
Male |
43 |
86% |
Female |
07 |
14% |
Side of Fracture |
|
|
Right |
25 |
50% |
Left |
21 |
42% |
Bilateral |
04 |
08% |
Age Group |
|
|
<50 years |
31 |
62% |
>50 Years |
19 |
38% |
Classification |
|
|
Zero column |
04 |
7.69% |
One column |
29 |
55.77% |
Two column |
11 |
21.15% |
Three column |
08 |
15.38% |
Fracture Morphology |
|
|
AL |
21 |
|
AM |
01 |
|
PM |
02 |
|
PL |
02 |
|
PM+PL |
02 |
|
AM+AL |
06 |
|
AL+PM |
02 |
|
AM+PM |
02 |
|
AL+AM+PM |
08 |
|
Classification |
Knee score |
Function score |
Zero column |
94.25 |
90 |
One column |
92.10 |
82.75 |
Two column |
86.63 |
77.28 |
Three column |
77.62 |
68.13 |
Fracture union in weeks |
No of Patients |
12 weeks |
21 |
12-24 weeks |
29 |
>24 weeks |
0 |
No complication |
47 |
Superficial infection |
01 |
Deep infection |
01 |
Common peroneal nerve palsy |
01 |
Discussion
Proximal tibia fractures are usually a result of high velocity trauma i.e. road traffic accident and therefore seen mostly among young adults.[11] In our study mean age was 46.3 years with males being predominantly affected.
Taking into consideration the associated soft tissue before planning the management of these fractures is of utmost importance. Staged management should be done as per literature with external fixator followed by definitive fixation as it provides time for the soft tissue to recover and improves the overall output of the surgery by decreasing chances of infection.[12], [13] In our study, staged management was done by giving elevation on Bohler Braun splint and Mgso4 dressing or external fixator application considering the wound and skin condition of the patient. Skin over the proposed incision site was observed for wrinkles and the decision to proceed with surgery was made. Mean interval between injury and surgery was 7.2 days. Previous studies have reported a mean time to surgery of 9.2 days[14] and 8.5 to 9 days.[15]
The four-column classification is a recent development in managing complex intra-articular tibial plateau fractures, particularly beneficial for multiplanar fractures involving the posterior column. Posterior column fractures often result from valgus-varus stress shear, typically seen in a partially to completely flexed knee when the femoral condyles impact the posterior half of the tibial plateau. This specific fracture pattern is challenging to visualize on plain radiographs alone, leading to potential oversight in diagnosis.
Despite its prevalence in complex tibial fractures, this injury pattern lacks recognition in existing classification systems like AO/OTA or Schatzker. Compression in the lateral posterior condyle and splitting in the medial posterior condyle are common features of these fractures. It is therefore very important to study the exact configuration of the medial column in complex proximal tibia fractures through axial CT cuts to define whether the fracture line is in coronal i.e. posteromedial fragment or sagittal plane. Molenaars et al. found posteromedial fragment to be prevalent in 81% of type V and 95 % of type VI fractures in a CT based morphological study.[16] Other studies have also found the presence of posteromedial fragment in 59%[17] and 74%[18] of bicondylar fractures. In our study prevalence of posteromedial fragment was 62.5% among cases of bicondylar fractures making it of immense importance to address the fragment separately as failure to do so might result in varus collapse and articular incongruity. Previously it was believed that a laterally placed locking plate would effectively buttress the medial fragment however it was found to be false in various clinical studies.[15]
Utilizing computed tomography with 3d reconstruction enhances recognition of proximal tibial fracture fragments, aids in column classification, and facilitates surgical planning. For bicondylar and complex patterns, combined anterolateral and posteromedial approaches offer biomechanical and clinical advantages. The most intricate cases involve three-column fractures, requiring a combination of a reversed l-shaped posterior approach and anterolateral approach for optimal fixation. This comprehensive approach ensures better outcomes in challenging tibial plateau fractures.
The conventional anterolateral approach is typically employed for simple tibial plateau fractures, specifically corresponding to the exclusive lateral column, as seen in Schatzker type i, ii, and iii fractures. However, for complex patterns resulting from a ramified fracture line, a combined approach becomes necessary. Achieving adequate reduction and stabilization in posterior column fractures proves challenging with traditional techniques, prompting the use of modified posterior approaches tailored to different fracture patterns.
Various approaches, such as the modified posterolateral approach for posterolateral shearing fractures and the inverted l-shaped posterior approach for posterolateral fractures, have been advocated by different authors. However, these approaches may encounter challenges like exposure difficulties or secondary loss of anatomic reduction. Additional techniques, like partial or total excision of the fibular head, may aid in reduction and fixation of the posterior and lateral columns but come with potential drawbacks, such as compromising normal lateral knee stability.
The choice of approach is crucial, and in practice, a combination of anterolateral and posteromedial approaches is often used for comprehensive management. The surgical approaches used in our study, with respect to fracture morphology has been stated in table 2. However, intraoperative considerations, such as neurovascular injury, surgical exposure challenges, and the need for altering patient and limb positioning, must be carefully navigated during posterior column stabilization for complex fractures.
Chen et al. Advocated the use of screws, reconstruction plates, or t-shaped plates based on fracture morphology, while Zeng et al. recommended posterior t-shaped anti-glide plates for split fractures, providing improved biomechanical stability. The application of newer anatomical locking plates for the posterior column proves effective in preventing bony collapse and secondary loss of reduction. The three-column concept serves as a valuable tool for diagnosing and meticulously planning pre-operatively in multiplanar intra-articular tibial plateau fractures, especially those involving the posterior column.
In our approach, we utilized column-based anatomical locking plates for the medial and lateral columns. The stabilization of the posterior column involved the use of various plates such as recon plates, distal radius plates, small fragment plates, and screws, tailored to the complexity of the fracture.
The rate of infection in our study was significantly low due to stringent aseptic precautions and adequate assessment of soft tissue injury.
Secondary loss of reduction- In our study, there were no instances of secondary loss of reduction in the form of medial collapse measured with medial proximal tibial angle (≥5 degrees). Table 7 compares the incidence of secondary loss of reduction during healing as reported in literature. Before 3 column classification little weightage was given to the idea of loss of reduction and varus collapse in bicondylar fractures treated with single lateral plate in comparison to dual plating. A study conducted by Weaver MJ in 2011 evaluated relationship between fracture geometry, fixation construct and secondary loss of reduction. It was found that lateral construct alone does well only in cases of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures with sagittal fracture line. While in cases with coronal split lateral construct alone shows higher incidence of secondary loss of reduction. Our study also supports the above stated statement. Therefore, 3 d CT scans are indicated to delineate exact fracture geometry as plain radiographs provide limited information.
In our study, through our column-based operative management and early rehabilitation, we achieved average knee score of 87.65 and function score of 79.54 as per knee society score which were comparable to study by Nikolaou et al.
Study |
No. of patients |
Varus collapse (no. of patients) |
Cong Feng Luo et al.[19] |
287 |
Nil |
Florence Unno et al.[20] |
101 |
3(2.9%) |
Hong Wei Chen et al.[21] |
39 |
Nil |
Barei et al.[18] |
83 |
2(2.4%) |
Devdutta Neogi et al.[15] |
61 |
5(8.2%) |
Gosling et al.[22] |
68 |
9(13.2%) |
Jiang et al.[23] |
84 |
3(3.57%) |
Our Study |
50 |
Nil |
Conclusion
Recent computed tomography-based classification is very useful in understanding fracture topography, preoperative planning, fixation technique and deciding most suited surgical approach for proximal tibia fractures to achieve a smooth articular surface, mechanical axis and joint stability. Certain fracture fragments which could be missed on radiographs are taken into consideration and fixed with fragment specific approach which in turn, helps in early rehabilitation resulting in good functional and radiological outcome, reduced instances of secondary loss of reduction. One thing that has to be taken into consideration is the soft tissue condition as using more hardware increases the chances of infection and wound dehiscence, though it can be easily avoided by following staged fixation. Still, a long-term study with large study group is needed to confirm the usefulness of the same.
Source of Funding
None.
Conflict of Interest
None.
References
- CM Court-Brown, B Caesar. Epidemiology of adult fractures: A review. Injury 2006. [Google Scholar]
- R Elsoe, P Larsen, NP Nielsen, J Swenne, S Rasmussen, SE Ostgaard. Population-Based Epidemiology of Tibial Plateau Fractures. Orthopedics 2015. [Google Scholar]
- EM Berkson, WW Virkus. High-energy tibial plateau fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006. [Google Scholar]
- JH Lubowitz, WS Elson, D Guttmann. Part I: arthroscopic management of tibial plateau fractures. Arthroscopy 2004. [Google Scholar]
- J Schatzker, B Browner, J Jupiter, A Levine, P Trafton. Tibial plateau fractures. Skeletal trauma: Fractures, dislocations, ligamentous injuries 1992. [Google Scholar]
- H Tscherne, HJ Oestern. A new classification of soft-tissue damage in open and closed fractures (author's Transl). Unfallheilkunde 1982. [Google Scholar]
- CF Luo, H Sun, B Zhang, BF Zeng. Three-column fixation for complex tibial plateau fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2010. [Google Scholar]
- H Hoekstra, K Kempenaers, S Nijs. A revised 3-column classification approach for the surgical planning of extended lateral tibial plateau fractures. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2017. [Google Scholar]
- M Krause, S Krüger, G Müller, K Püschel, KH Frosch. How can the articular surface of the tibial plateau be best exposed? A comparison of specific surgical approaches. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2019. [Google Scholar]
- RB Gustilo, JT Anderson. Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976. [Google Scholar]
- JL Marsh, ST Smith, TT Do. External fixation and limited internal fixation for complex fractures of the tibial plateau. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995. [Google Scholar]
- NC Tejwani, P Achan. Staged management of high-energy proximal tibia fractures. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 2004. [Google Scholar]
- KA Egol, NC Tejwani, EL Capla, PL Wolinsky, KJ Koval. Staged management of high-energy proximal tibia fractures (OTA types 41): the results of a prospective, standardized protocol. J Orthop Trauma 2005. [Google Scholar]
- DP Barei, SE Nork, WJ Mills, MB Henley, SK Benirschke. Complications associated with internal fixation of high-energy bicondylar tibial plateau fractures utilizing a two-incision technique. J Orthop Trauma 2004. [Google Scholar]
- DS Neogi, V Trikha, KK Mishra, SM Bandekar, CS Yadav. Comparative study of single lateral locked plating versus double plating in type C bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. Indian J Orthop 2015. [Google Scholar]
- RJ Molenaars, JJ Mellema, JN Doornberg, P Kloen. Tibial Plateau Fracture Characteristics: Computed Tomography Mapping of Lateral, Medial, and Bicondylar Fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015. [Google Scholar]
- TF Higgins, D Kemper, J Klatt. Incidence and morphology of the posteromedial fragment in bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2009. [Google Scholar]
- DP Barei, TJ O’mara, LA Taitsman, RP Dunbar, SE Nork. Frequency and fracture morphology of the posteromedial fragment in bicondylar tibial plateau fracture patterns. J Orthop Trauma 2008. [Google Scholar]
- T Grosling, P Schandelmaier, M Muller, S Hankemeier, M Wagner, C Krettek. Single lateral locked screw plating of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005. [Google Scholar]
- HW Chen, SH Zhou, GD Liu, X Zhao, J Pan, S Ou. An extended anterolateral approach for posterolateral tibial plateau fractures. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015. [Google Scholar]
- F Unno, KA Lefaivre, G Osterhoff, P Guy, HM Broekhuyse, PA Blachut. Is Early Definitive Fixation of Bicondylar Tibial Plateau Fractures Safe? An Observational Cohort Study. J Orthop Trauma 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Y Wang, C Luo, Y Zhu. Updated Three-Column Concept in surgical treatment for tibial plateau fractures - A prospective cohort study of 287 patients. Injury 2016. [Google Scholar]
- R Jiang, CF Luo, MC Wang, TY Yang, BF Zeng. A comparative study of Less Invasive Stabilization System (LISS) fixation and two-incision double plating for the treatment of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. Knee 2008. [Google Scholar]