Purcell Kevin F, Bergin Patrick F, Russell George V, Graves Matt L, Jones LaRita C, Spitler Clay A
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS; and.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
J Orthop Trauma. 2022 Mar 1;36(3):157-162. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000002252.
To determine the outcomes of pilon and tibial shaft fractures with syndesmotic injuries compared with similar fractures without syndesmotic injury.
Retrospective case-control study.
Level 1 trauma center.
PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: All patients over a 5-year period (2012-2017) with tibial shaft or pilon fractures with a concomitant syndesmotic injury and a control group without a syndesmotic injury matched for age, OTA/AO fracture classification, and Gustilo-Anderson open fracture classification.
Preoperative or intraoperative diagnosis of syndesmotic injury with reduction and fixation of both fracture and syndesmosis.
Rates of deep infection, nonunion, unplanned reoperation, and amputation in patients with a combined syndesmotic injury and tibial shaft or pilon fracture versus those without a syndesmotic injury.
A total of 30 patients, including 15 tibial shaft and 15 pilon fractures, were found to have associated syndesmotic injuries. The matched control group comprised 60 patients. The incidence of syndesmotic injury in all tibial shaft fractures was 2.3% and in all pilon fractures was 3.4%. The syndesmotic injury group had more neurologic injuries (23.3% vs. 8.3% P = 0.02), more vascular injuries not requiring repair (30% vs. 15%, P = 0.13), and a higher rate compartment syndrome (6.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.063). Segmental fibula fracture was significantly more common in patients with a syndesmotic injury (36.7% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.04). Fifty percent of the syndesmotic injury group underwent an unplanned reoperation with significantly more unplanned reoperations (50% vs. 27.5%, P = 0.04). The syndesmotic group had a significantly higher deep infection rate (26.7% vs. 8.3% P = 0.047) and higher rate of amputation (26.7% vs. 3.3% P = 0.002) while the nonunion rate was similar (17.4% vs. 16.7% P = 0.85).
Although syndesmotic injuries with tibial shaft or pilon fractures are rare, they are a marker of a potentially limb-threatening injury. Limbs with this combined injury are at increased risk of deep infection, unplanned reoperation, and amputation. The presence of a segmental fibula fracture should raise clinical suspicion to evaluate for syndesmotic injury.
Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
确定伴有下胫腓联合损伤的Pilon骨折和胫骨干骨折与不伴有下胫腓联合损伤的类似骨折的治疗结果。
回顾性病例对照研究。
一级创伤中心。
患者/参与者:选取5年期间(2012 - 2017年)所有伴有下胫腓联合损伤的胫骨干或Pilon骨折患者,以及一个年龄、OTA/AO骨折分类和Gustilo-Anderson开放性骨折分类相匹配的无下胫腓联合损伤的对照组。
术前或术中诊断下胫腓联合损伤,并对骨折和下胫腓联合进行复位和固定。
伴有下胫腓联合损伤的胫骨干或Pilon骨折患者与无下胫腓联合损伤患者的深部感染率、骨不连率、计划外再次手术率和截肢率。
共发现30例患者伴有下胫腓联合损伤,其中胫骨干骨折15例,Pilon骨折15例。匹配的对照组有60例患者。所有胫骨干骨折中下胫腓联合损伤的发生率为2.3%,所有Pilon骨折中为3.4%。下胫腓联合损伤组有更多的神经损伤(23.3%对8.3%,P = 0.02),更多无需修复的血管损伤(30%对15%,P = 0.13),以及更高的骨筋膜室综合征发生率(6.7%对0%,P = 0.063)。节段性腓骨骨折在伴有下胫腓联合损伤的患者中明显更常见(36.7%对13.3%,P = 0.04)。下胫腓联合损伤组中有50%接受了计划外再次手术,计划外再次手术明显更多(50%对27.5%),P = 0.04)。下胫腓联合损伤组深部感染率明显更高(26.7%对8.3%,P = 0.047),截肢率更高(26.7%对3.3%,P = 0.002),而骨不连率相似(17.4%对16.7%,P = 0.85)。
虽然胫骨干或Pilon骨折合并下胫腓联合损伤很少见,但它们是潜在肢体威胁性损伤的标志。合并这种损伤的肢体发生深部感染、计划外再次手术和截肢的风险增加。节段性腓骨骨折的存在应引起临床怀疑,以评估是否存在下胫腓联合损伤。
预后III级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参阅作者指南。