Rainer Christoph Miksch, Viktoria Herterich, Alexej Barg, Wolfgang Böcker, Hans Polzer, Sebastian Felix Baumbach
{"title":"Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of the Posterior Malleolus Fragment in Ankle Fractures Improves the Patient-Rated Outcome: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Rainer Christoph Miksch, Viktoria Herterich, Alexej Barg, Wolfgang Böcker, Hans Polzer, Sebastian Felix Baumbach","doi":"10.1177/10711007231165771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The best treatment strategy for fractures to the posterior malleolus (PM) is still intensively debated. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the patient-rated outcome following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for fractures of the PM to either closed reduction using AP screws (CRIF) or no treatment in bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic literature research (MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, Scopus, Central and EMBASE) according to the PICOS and PRISMA guidelines. Eligible were studies comparing the outcome following ORIF to any other treatment strategy for fractures to the posterior malleolus in isolated bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies were eligible for a qualitative analysis and 6 for a quantitative analysis. Overall, a considerable heterogeneity among the studies was observed. The most commonly used outcome score was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score (AOFAS). The final follow-up ranged from 12 to 160 months. Four studies compared ORIF to CRIF of the PM. The quantitative analysis revealed significantly better AOFAS scores for ORIF (90.9 vs 83.4 points; <i>P</i> < .001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%). Three studies compared ORIF to untreated PM fragment. The quantitative analysis again revealed superior AOFAS scores for ORIF (92.0 vs 82.5 points; <i>P</i> < .001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 99%). A similar trend was observed for the Ankle Fracture Scoring System and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle Questionnaire scores as well as the quality of reduction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite a considerable heterogeneity, the data available point to a superior outcome following ORIF for fractures to the PM when compared to CRIF or no treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":12446,"journal":{"name":"Foot & Ankle International","volume":"44 8","pages":"727-737"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c9/4b/10.1177_10711007231165771.PMC10394961.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & Ankle International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10711007231165771","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The best treatment strategy for fractures to the posterior malleolus (PM) is still intensively debated. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the patient-rated outcome following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for fractures of the PM to either closed reduction using AP screws (CRIF) or no treatment in bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures.
Methods: Systematic literature research (MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, Scopus, Central and EMBASE) according to the PICOS and PRISMA guidelines. Eligible were studies comparing the outcome following ORIF to any other treatment strategy for fractures to the posterior malleolus in isolated bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures.
Results: Twelve studies were eligible for a qualitative analysis and 6 for a quantitative analysis. Overall, a considerable heterogeneity among the studies was observed. The most commonly used outcome score was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score (AOFAS). The final follow-up ranged from 12 to 160 months. Four studies compared ORIF to CRIF of the PM. The quantitative analysis revealed significantly better AOFAS scores for ORIF (90.9 vs 83.4 points; P < .001; I2 = 0%). Three studies compared ORIF to untreated PM fragment. The quantitative analysis again revealed superior AOFAS scores for ORIF (92.0 vs 82.5 points; P < .001; I2 = 99%). A similar trend was observed for the Ankle Fracture Scoring System and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle Questionnaire scores as well as the quality of reduction.
Conclusion: Despite a considerable heterogeneity, the data available point to a superior outcome following ORIF for fractures to the PM when compared to CRIF or no treatment.
期刊介绍:
Foot & Ankle International (FAI), in publication since 1980, is the official journal of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS). This monthly medical journal emphasizes surgical and medical management as it relates to the foot and ankle with a specific focus on reconstructive, trauma, and sports-related conditions utilizing the latest technological advances. FAI offers original, clinically oriented, peer-reviewed research articles presenting new approaches to foot and ankle pathology and treatment, current case reviews, and technique tips addressing the management of complex problems. This journal is an ideal resource for highly-trained orthopaedic foot and ankle specialists and allied health care providers.
The journal’s Founding Editor, Melvin H. Jahss, MD (deceased), served from 1980-1988. He was followed by Kenneth A. Johnson, MD (deceased) from 1988-1993; Lowell D. Lutter, MD (deceased) from 1993-2004; and E. Greer Richardson, MD from 2005-2007. David B. Thordarson, MD, assumed the role of Editor-in-Chief in 2008.
The journal focuses on the following areas of interest:
• Surgery
• Wound care
• Bone healing
• Pain management
• In-office orthotic systems
• Diabetes
• Sports medicine