The Schatzker classification system divides tibial plateau fractures into six types
- Schatzker I: lateral tibial plateau fracture, with minimal (<4mm) depression or displacement.
- Schatzker II: lateral tibial plateau fracture with fragment depression
- Schatzker III: compression fracture of the lateral (IIIA) or central (IIIB) tibial plateau
- Schatzker IV: medial tibial plateau fracture with split/depressed component
- Schatzker V: bicondylar (lateral and medial) tibial plateau fractures
- Schatzker VI: transverse tibial plateau fracture with metaphyseal-diaphyseal discontinuity (also known as Type C articular fracture in the AO classification)
History of the Schatzker classification system
1951 – Attempts at classifying tibial plateau fractures were first made in the 1950’s by Palmer
Common themes for these fractures were established at this time, including fracture of one condyle or bicondylar involvement and subchondral depression.
1979 – Joseph Schatzker published a formal classification system for tibial plateau fractures by using AP radiographs of a group of 94 patients. The emphasis on this classification system was to guide treatment with relation to the original fracture pattern and mode of injury
Many other classification systems for tibial plateau fractures have since been described including that from Khan et al. (2000), however the Schatzker and AO/OTA systems remain the two used most commonly today
- Joseph Schatzker (1934 – )
- Does not include fractures in the coronal plane or others not seen on plain AP radiographs
- Tibial plateau fractures that were operatively managed had better outcomes than those that were managed non-operativley; but patients with a tibial plateau fracture and associated osteoporotic bone had poorer outcomes when managed operatively than non-operatively.
- Soft tissue injury is another management consideration for tibial plateau fractures, but it does not lie in the classification system put forward by Schatzker
- Interobserver reliability varies with the Schatzker classification as only plain radiographs are used. This may be improved by adding other imaging modalities, such as CT or MRI to the plain radiograph, but no current literature is sold on advanced imaging being a necessity for the purposes of the classification system on its own.
- In terms of surgical planning, the use of cross-sectional imaging are more accurate than the plain AP radiographs used in the Schatzker classification system
- Palmer I. Fractures of the upper end of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1951; 33: 160-166
- Hohl M, Luck JV. Fractures of the tibial condyle; a clinical and experimental study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1956 Oct;38-A(5):1001-18
- Hohl M. Tibial condylar fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1967; 49(7): 1455–1467
- Lucht U, Pilgaard S. Fractures of the tibial condyles. Acta Orthop Scand. 1971;42(4):366-76.
- Schatzker J, McBroom R, Bruce D. The tibial plateau fracture. The Toronto experience 1968 – 1975. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979 Jan-Feb;(138):94-104
Eponymous term review
- Müller ME, Nazarian S, Koch P, Schatzker J. The Comprehensive Classification of Fractures of Long Bones. Springer 1990
- Khan RM, Khan SH, Ahmad AJ, Umar M. Tibial plateau fractures: a new classification scheme. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000; 375: 231–242
- Walton NP, Harish S, Roberts C, Blundell C. AO or Schatzker? How reliable is classification of tibial plateau fractures? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003; 123: 396–398
- Markhardt B, Gross J, Monu J. Schatzker Classification of Tibial Plateau Fractures: Use of CT and MR Imaging Improves Assessment. Radiographics. 2009;29 (2): 585-597.
- Zeltser D, Leopold S. Classifications in Brief: Schatzker Classification of Tibial Plateau Fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb; 471(2):371-374
the names behind the name