ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2024
Knee Instability Following Fractures Around the Knee Joint: Diagnostic Dilemma and Management Challenges.
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Knee instability following fractures around the knee joint is not uncommon but is often missed. They present challenges in identifying them during index injury or at follow-up. We share our experience of knee instability following fractures around the knee joint. Purpose: (1) To identify the pattern of clinically significant knee instability following fractures around the knee joint. (2) To discern the association of fracture morphology with ligamentous disruption. (3) To identify the risk factors for knee ligament injury following fractures around the knee. (4) To recognise the signs of instability in fracture scenarios and their diagnostic pitfalls/management challenges. Methods: After appropriate Ethical committee clearance and patient consent, a retrospective analysis of 595 fractures around the knee joint was performed at our institute from 2018 to 2021. After employing the exclusion criteria, a total of 92 cases of ligament injuries were included in the analysis. Seventy-six of them were identified and addressed during the index procedure, and 16 of them presented with delayed instability during fracture healing, treated by appropriate arthroscopic ligament reconstruction. Demographic data, mode of injury, fracture morphology, ligament injury pattern and associated injuries were documented and analysed. Functional outcome was assessed using Lysholm scoring and the International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire at the final follow-up. Results: The overall incidence of clinically significant knee ligament injury was 15.46%. Among the 76 acute cases, 8 were ACL avulsions, 47 were PCL avulsions, 9 were MCL injuries, 2 were LCL injuries, and 10 had MLKI treated by arthroscopic/open techniques. Out of the 16 cases that presented late, 6 had ACL injuries, 2 had LCL injuries, and 8 of them had a multi-ligamentous knee injury. With respect to the fracture pattern, 56 (60.9%) had tibia fractures, 24 (26.1%) had femur fractures, 3 (3.3%) of them had patella fractures, and 9 (9.8%) had floating knee injuries. The mean Lysholm score was 85.7 ± 9.8. 19.6% ( Conclusion: Knee instability following fractures around the knee is not uncommon, one out of six fractures may have significant instability. Identifying and addressing is key for a satisfactory outcome and to avoid its sequalae.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.