Objective To investigate the biomechanical characteristics of self-developed distraction reduction fixation system (DRFS) and to evaluate its cl inical effect on thoracolumbar vertebrate fracture. Methods Twelve fresh porcine spines were prepared for the biomechanical test. The stiffness of each intact specimen were recorded on forward bending (20°),backward bending (10°), lateral bending (30°) and axial rotation (20°), and then specimens of fracture dislocation were made by cuneiform osteotomy of L3 vertebral body and excision of posterior facet joints. Finally, DRFS internal fixation was performed on each specimen. The stiffness of specimens in fracture dislocation and after DRFS fixation were measured during the same movements mentioned above, respectively. The cl inical effect of DRFS on thoracolumbar vertebrate fracture in 31 patients (aged 17-46 years with an average of 32.1) from April 1998 to October 2002 was summarized. Fracture types were classified according to Denis classification: 2 patients suffered simple compressed fracture, 16 burst fracture, and 13 fracture dislocation, including 2 cases of T11, 11 cases of T12, 14 cases of L1 and 4 cases of L2. Frankel and X-ray examination were adopted to assess the results. Results The stiffness during forward bending, backward bending, lateral bending and axial rotation in the fracturedislocation state was markedly lower than that of the corresponding movements of the intact porcine spines (P lt; 0.05). After DRFS, the stiffness during various movements increased to the level that significantly higher than that in the fracture-dislocation state (P lt; 0.05), and the stiffness during backward bending was of significant difference (P lt; 0.05), but without significant difference during the rest three movements (P gt; 0.05) when compared to that in intact spines. Regarding cl inical observation, the operation time was 2.2-4.1 hours (2.7 hours on average) and blood loss was 250-600 mL (450 mL on average). The patients were followed up for 5-20 months (10.2 months on average). The heal ing time for fracture was 5-11months (8 months onaverage). The mean anterior and posterior heights of the injured vertebrate recovered from 46.2% ± 7.5% and 76.4% ± 2.4% preoperatively to 89.8% ± 4.6% and 94.1% ± 1.5% postoperatively (P lt; 0.05).The median point height also raised from 60.8% ± 6.4% to 90.7% ± 2.9% (P lt; 0.05). The Cobb’s angle decreased from (26.3 ± 5.9)° to (5.2 ± 1.8)° (P lt; 0.05), and all the sl ipped vertebrates were well repositioned. Spine function was assessed by Frankel classification as follows: 2 of 5 Class A preoperatively improved to Class B postoperatively, and the other 3 remained unchanged ; 4 of 6 from B to C, and the other 2 to D; 6 of 13 from C to D, and the other 7 to E; and 7 from D to E. Conclusion DRFS is capable of providing sufficient stabil ity, meeting the requirement of the spine physical activity without any obvious side effect. DRFS, as a handy, safe and effective technique in cl inical practice, is featured by satisfying functions of distraction, reposition and fixation.
Objective To compare the effectiveness and advantages of the double reverse traction reduction technique versus open reduction internal fixation for treating complex tibial plateau fractures. Methods A clinical data of 25 patients with Schatzker type Ⅴ or Ⅵ tibial plateau fractures, who met the selection criteria and were admitted between January 2019 and January 2023, was retrospectively analyzed. Thirteen patients underwent double reverse traction reduction and internal fixation (double reverse traction group), while 12 patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation (traditional open group). There was no significant difference in the baseline data (age, gender, injury mechanism, Schatzker classification, interval between injury and operation) between the two groups (P>0.05). The effectiveness were evaluated and compared between the two groups, included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, incision length, hospital stay, full weight-bearing time, complications, fracture healing, Rasmussen radiological score (reduction quality), knee Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, and knee flexion/extension range of motion. Results The double reverse traction group demonstrated superior outcomes in operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, incision length, and time to full weight-bearing (P<0.05). Two patients in traditional open group developed incisional complications, while the double reverse traction group had no complications. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complication between the two groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 24-36 months (mean, 30 months), with no intergroup difference in follow-up duration (P>0.05). Fractures healed in both groups with no significant difference in healing times (P>0.05). At 6 months after operation, Rasmussen radiological scores and grading showed no significant difference (P>0.05); the double reverse traction group had significantly higher HSS scores and grading compared to the traditional open group (P<0.05). At 12 months after operation, knee flexion/extension range of motion were significantly greater in double reverse traction group than in traditional open group (P<0.05). Conclusion Double reverse traction reduction offers advantages over traditional open reduction internal fixation, including shorter operative time, reduced blood loss, minimized soft tissue trauma, and improved joint functional recovery. It is a safe and reliable method for complex tibial plateau fractures.