Diagnostic Predictors of Recovery Outcomes Following Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Tibial Plateau...

Background: Tibial plateau fractures (TPFs) are complex injuries often leading to long-term complications such as knee instability, limited range of motion, and osteoarthritis. Accurate diagnostic evaluations combining subjective and objective assessments are essential for identifying functional limitations, guiding rehabilitation, and improving recovery outcomes. This study examines the role of diagnostic predictors in differentiating recovery trajectories in two groups of patients treated for closed TPFs by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), comparing patients with less severe fractures and patients with more severe fractures (BCFs). Methods: A consecutive series of patients with a diagnosis of TPFs treated by ORIF at our institution between 2009 and 2016 were analyzed in this retrospective study. All injured patients were divided according to the Schatzker classification into two groups: mono-condylar (MCF) and bi-condylar (BCF) fracture patient groups. Diagnostic evaluations included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as KOOS, IKDC, and AKSS, alongside objective assessments of functional recovery using dynamometers, force platform tests (single-leg stance and squat jump variations), and measurements of active range of motion (AROM). Results: A total of 28 patients were included: 17 in the MCF patient group (Schatzker: 12 II; 5 III; 0 IV) and 11 in the BCF patient group (Schatzker: 6 V; 5 VI). Patients with less severe MCFs exhibited significantly better recovery outcomes, including higher KOOS (86.0 vs. 64.6, p = 0.04), IKDC (80.3 vs. 64.6, p = 0.04), and AKSS (95.3 vs. 70.5, p = 0.02) scores. They also demonstrated greater knee flexion (122.8° vs. 105.5°, p = 0.04) and faster neuromuscular recovery, as evidenced by higher rates of force development (RFD) during dynamic performance tests. Conversely, patients with more severe BCFs showed lower RFD values, indicating slower recovery and greater rehabilitation challenges. Conclusions: Integrating diagnostic tools like PROMs, AROM, and neuromuscular performance tests provides valuable insights into recovery after ORIF for TPFs. Fracture severity significantly impacts functional recovery patients with MCFs showing better outcomes and faster neuromuscular recovery, while subjects with BCFs require a longer rehabilitation treatment focusing on neuromuscular re-education and soft tissue recovery.