Abstract
Background
In fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures, AO advocate using a lag screw and one-third tubular neutralisation plate for simple patterns. Where a lag screw cannot be placed, bridging fixation is required. A local pilot service evaluation previously identified variance in use of locking plates in all patterns with significant cost implications. The FAIR study aimed to evaluate current practice and implant use across the United Kingdom (UK) and review outcomes and complication rates between different fibula fixation methods.
Method
The study was supported by CORNET, the North East trainee research collaborative, and BOTA. Data was collected using REDCap from 22 centres in the UK retrospectively for a one-year period between 1st January 2019 and 31st December 2019 on injury mechanism, fracture characteristics, comorbidities, fixation and complications. Follow-up data was collected to at least two-years from the time surgery.
Results
1448 ankle fractures which involved fixation of the fibula were recorded; one-third tubular plate was used in 866 (59.8%) cases, a locking plate in 463 (32.0%) cases and other methods in 119 (8.2%) cases. There was significant difference between centres (p<0.001) in implant type used. Other factors associated with implant type were age, diabetes, osteoporosis, open fractures, fracture pattern and the presence of comminution. Incidence of lateral wound breakdown was higher in locking plates than one-third tubular plates (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in infection, non-union, fixation failure or removal of metalware.
Conclusion
There is significant variation in practice in the UK in implant use for fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures. Potentially unnecessary use of locking plates, where a one-third tubular shows equivalent outcomes, incurs additional cost and may increase the risk of lateral wound breakdown. We would encourage surgeons with high locking plate usage to evaluate their own unit's practice against this data.
