↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Surgical fixation methods for tibial plateau fractures

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
6 tweeters
1 Google+ user


51 Dimensions

Readers on

354 Mendeley
Surgical fixation methods for tibial plateau fractures
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009679.pub2
Pubmed ID

Iain R McNamara, Toby O Smith, Karen L Shepherd, Allan B Clark, Dominic M Nielsen, Simon Donell, Caroline B Hing


Fractures of the tibial plateau, which are intra-articular injuries of the knee joint, are often difficult to treat and have a high complication rate, including early-onset osteoarthritis. Surgical fixation is usually used for more complex tibial plateau fractures. Additionally, bone void fillers are often used to address bone defects caused by the injury. Currently there is no consensus on either the best method of fixation or bone void filler. To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of different surgical interventions, and the use of bone void fillers, for treating tibial plateau fractures. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (12 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2014 Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to September Week 1 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 2014 Week 36), trial registries (4 July 2014), conference proceedings and grey literature (4 July 2014). We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing surgical interventions for treating tibial plateau fractures and the different types of filler for filling bone defects. Two review authors independently screened search results, selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Only very limited pooling, using the fixed-effect model, was possible. Our primary outcomes were quality of life measures, patient-reported outcome measures of lower limb function and serious adverse events. We included six trials in the review, with a total of 429 adult participants, the majority of whom were male (63%). Three trials evaluated different types of fixation and three analysed different types of bone graft substitutes. All six trials were small and at substantial risk of bias. We judged the quality of most of the available evidence to be very low, meaning that we are very uncertain about these results.One trial compared the use of a circular fixator combined with insertion of percutaneous screws (hybrid fixation) versus standard open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in people with open or closed Schatzker types V or VI tibial plateau fractures. Results (66 participants) for quality of life scores using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36)), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) scores and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function scores tended to favour hybrid fixation, but a benefit of ORIF could not be ruled out. Participants in the hybrid fixation group had a lower risk for an unplanned reoperation (351 per 1000 people compared with 450 in the ORIF group; 95% CI 197 fewer to 144 more) and were more likely to have returned to their pre-injury activity level (303 per 1000 people, compared with 121 in the ORIF group; 95% CI 15 fewer to 748 more). Results of the two groups were comparable for the WOMAC pain subscale and stiffness scores, but mean knee range of motion values were higher in the hybrid group.Another trial compared the use of a minimally invasive plate (LISS system) versus double-plating ORIF in 84 people who had open or closed bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. Nearly twice as many participants (22 versus 12) in the ORIF group had a bone graft. Quality of life, pain, knee range of motion and return to pre-injury activity were not reported. The trial provided no evidence of differences in HSS knee scores, complications or reoperation entailing implant removal or revision fixation. A quasi-randomised trial comparing arthroscopically-assisted percutaneous reduction and internal fixation versus standard ORIF reported results at 14 months in 58 people with closed Schatzker types II or III tibial plateau fracture. Quality of life, pain and return to pre-injury activity were not reported. There was very low quality evidence of higher HSS knee scores and higher knee range of motion values in the arthroscopically assisted group. No reoperations were reported.Three trials compared different types of bone substitute versus autologous bone graft (autograft) for managing bone defects. Quality of life, pain and return to pre-injury activity were not reported. Only one trial (25 participants) reported on lower limb function, finding good or excellent results in both groups for walking, climbing stairs, squatting and jumping at 12 months. The incidences of individual complications were similar between groups in all three trials. One trial found no cases of inflammatory response in the 20 participants receiving bone substitute, and two found no complications associated with the donor site in the autograft group (58 participants). However, all 38 participants in the autologous iliac bone graft group of one trial reported prolonged pain from the harvest site. Two trials reported similar range of motion results in the two groups, whereas the third trial favoured the bone substitute group. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to ascertain the best method of fixation or the best method of addressing bone defects during surgery. However, the evidence does not contradict approaches aiming to limit soft-tissue dissection and damage or to avoid autograft donor site complications through using bone substitutes. Further well-designed, larger randomised trials are warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 354 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 353 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 17%
Student > Bachelor 45 13%
Researcher 44 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 10%
Student > Postgraduate 32 9%
Other 75 21%
Unknown 63 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 171 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 10%
Psychology 10 3%
Computer Science 8 2%
Sports and Recreations 8 2%
Other 45 13%
Unknown 77 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2020.
All research outputs
of 17,358,590 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 247,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,358,590 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 247,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.