Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Jan 14, 2022; 10(2): 502-510
Published online Jan 14, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i2.502
Published online Jan 14, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i2.502
Table 3 Comparison of the angles of tibial plateau varus angle and tibial plateau retroversion angle between the two groups of patients at different times after surgery (mean ± SD)
Group | n | TPA angle (°) | PA angle (°) | ||
Immediately after surgery | 18 mo after surgery | Immediately after surgery | 18 mo after surgery | ||
Study group | 49 | 86.34 ± 3.81 | 86.04 ± 2.51 | 9.54 ± 2.20 | 9.83 ± 1.72 |
Control group | 48 | 86.51 ± 3.44 | 85.78 ± 2.92 | 9.31 ± 2.14 | 9.91 ± 1.84 |
t value | -0.231 | 0.471 | 0.522 | -0.221 | |
P value | 0.818 | 0.639 | 0.603 | 0.825 |
- Citation: Li HF, Yu T, Zhu XF, Wang H, Zhang YQ. Locking compression plate + T-type steel plate for postoperative weight bearing and functional recovery in complex tibial plateau fractures. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(2): 502-510
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i2/502.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i2.502