Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Konkuk University Chungju Hospital, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Chungju, Korea.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Cheongju, Korea.
Foot Ankle Int. 2021 Nov;42(11):1469-1481. doi: 10.1177/10711007211017470. Epub 2021 Jun 29.
We aimed to compare midterm radiological and clinical outcomes between closed reduction and internal fixation (CRIF) using the fibular intramedullary nail (IMN) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using the locking plate for the treatment of unstable ankle fractures in active young patients.
In this retrospective cohort study, 204 patients treated with CRIF using the fibular IMN (94 patients) or ORIF using the locking plate (110 patients) were included after at least 3 years of follow-up. The mean patient age was 41.4 years. Radiographic evaluation included the quality of reduction assessed by plain radiography and 3-dimensional (3D)-reconstructed computed tomography as well as the development of posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) of the ankle assessed by weightbearing plain radiography. Clinical evaluation included the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society hindfoot score, Olerud and Molander Score, the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, and visual analog scale pain score as well as complications.
At median follow-up greater than 4 years, we found no significant differences in measured clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. There were significantly fewer postoperative complications in the IMN group than in the ORIF group (9.5% vs 39%, < .001). However, we did find a greater proportion of radiographically fair or poor reductions in the IMN group than in the ORIF group ( < .001). The poor reductions in the IMN group were primarily related to Weber type C, pronation-type injury, and comminuted fibular and trimalleolar fractures ( < .001). PTOA was also more frequently observed in the IMN group than in the ORIF group (21.3% vs 9.1%, = .024).
Given the current prevailing technologies for fracture fixation, this study suggests that surgeons should consider ORIF for unstable ankle fractures in active young patients with Weber type C, pronation-type injury, and comminuted fibular and trimalleolar fractures.
Level III, retrospective comparative study.
我们旨在比较闭合复位内固定(CRIF)使用腓骨髓内钉(IMN)与切开复位内固定(ORIF)使用锁定钢板治疗活跃年轻患者不稳定踝关节骨折的中期影像学和临床结果。
在这项回顾性队列研究中,纳入了至少随访 3 年的 204 例接受 CRIF 使用腓骨髓内钉(94 例)或 ORIF 使用锁定钢板(110 例)治疗的患者。患者平均年龄为 41.4 岁。影像学评估包括 X 线和平行 CT 三维重建评估的复位质量以及负重 X 线评估的踝关节创伤后关节炎(PTOA)的发展。临床评估包括美国矫形足踝协会后足评分、Olerud 和 Molander 评分、足踝结果评分和视觉模拟评分疼痛以及并发症。
在中位数随访超过 4 年的时间里,我们发现两组之间在测量的临床结果方面没有显著差异。IMN 组术后并发症明显少于 ORIF 组(9.5%比 39%,<0.001)。然而,我们确实发现 IMN 组的影像学复位质量较差的比例高于 ORIF 组(<0.001)。IMN 组的不良复位主要与 Weber 型 C、旋前型损伤以及腓骨和三踝骨折粉碎有关(<0.001)。PTOA 在 IMN 组也比 ORIF 组更常见(21.3%比 9.1%,=0.024)。
鉴于目前骨折固定的流行技术,本研究表明,对于 Weber 型 C、旋前型损伤以及腓骨和三踝骨折粉碎的活跃年轻患者不稳定踝关节骨折,外科医生应考虑 ORIF。
III 级,回顾性比较研究。