Citation

Soni A, Gupta R, Gupta S, Kansay R, Kapoor L. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2019; 10(4): 785-788.

Affiliation

Department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector - 32, Chandigarh, 160032, India.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.jcot.2018.08.012

PMID

31316255

PMCID

PMC6611915

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We treated proximal tibia fractures according to our own CT based classification in which we divided these fractures into different varus and valgus fractures. We also provide a guide for reduction of these fractures and the sequence in which different fractured fragments of proximal tibia should be fixed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were identified from the hospital records, treated according to classification based upon mechanism of injury, from August 2014 to December 2016. Patients were called for follow up in outpatient department for evaluation. Functional evaluation was done according to Rasmussen functional grading score.

RESULTS: Twenty one patients of proximal tibia fracture were treated between august 2014 to December 2016 according to our method. There were 17 male and 4 female. Age ranged from 20 year to 65 year (average 35.19 year). 17 patients were turned up for latest follow up who were analysed for Rasmusssen functional grading score. 14 patients had excellent and 3 patients had good function according to Rasmussen functional grading score.

CONCLUSIONS: Our classification system provides a guide for reduction of proximal tibia fractures and also tells us the sequence of different fracture fragments.

Language: en

Keywords

Classification; Condyle; Fracture; Mechanism; Proximal tibia