Aims. The optimal management of posterior malleolar ankle fractures, a prevalent type of ankle trauma, is essential for improved prognosis. However, there remains a debate over the most effective surgical approach, particularly between screw and plate fixation methods. This study aims to investigate the differences in outcomes associated with these fixation techniques. Methods. We conducted a comprehensive review of clinical trials comparing anteroposterior (A-P) screws, posteroanterior (P-A) screws, and plate fixation. Two investigators validated the data sourced from multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science). Following PRISMA guidelines, we carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using visual analogue scale and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included range of motion limitations, radiological outcomes, and complication rates. Results. The NMA encompassed 13 studies, consisting of four randomized trials and eight retrospective ones. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve-based ranking, the A-P screw was ranked highest for improvements in AOFAS and exhibited lowest in infection and peroneal nerve injury incidence. The P-A screws, on the other hand, excelled in terms of VAS score improvements. Conversely, posterior buttress plate fixation showed the least incidence of osteoarthritis grade progression, postoperative articular step-off ≥ 2 mm, nonunions, and loss of ankle dorsiflexion ≥ 5°, though it underperformed in most other clinical outcomes. Conclusion. The NMA suggests that open plating is more likely to provide better radiological outcomes, while screw fixation may have a greater potential for superior functional and pain results. Nevertheless, clinicians should still consider the fragment size and fracture pattern, weighing the advantages of rigid biomechanical fixation against the possibility of soft-tissue damage, to optimize treatment results. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):227–235

Aims. Proper preoperative planning benefits fracture reduction, fixation, and stability in tibial plateau fracture surgery. We developed and clinically implemented a novel workflow for 3D surgical planning including patient-specific drilling guides in tibial plateau fracture surgery. Methods. A prospective feasibility study was performed in which consecutive tibial plateau fracture patients were treated with 3D surgical planning, including patient-specific drilling guides applied to standard off-the-shelf plates. A postoperative CT scan was obtained to assess whether the screw directions, screw lengths, and plate position were performed according the preoperative planning. Quality of the fracture reduction was assessed by measuring residual intra-articular incongruence (maximum gap and step-off) and compared to a historical matched control group. Results. A total of 15 patients were treated with 3D surgical planning in which 83 screws were placed by using drilling guides. The median deviation of the achieved screw trajectory from the planned trajectory was 3.4° (interquartile range (IQR) 2.5 to 5.4) and the difference in entry points (i.e. plate position) was 3.0 mm (IQR 2.0 to 5.5) compared to the 3D preoperative planning. The length of 72 screws (86.7%) were according to the planning. Compared to the historical cohort, 3D-guided surgery showed an improved surgical reduction in terms of median gap (3.1 vs 4.7 mm; p = 0.126) and step-off (2.9 vs 4.0 mm; p = 0.026). Conclusion. The use of 3D surgical planning including drilling guides was feasible, and facilitated accurate screw directions, screw lengths, and plate positioning. Moreover, the personalized approach improved fracture reduction as compared to a historical cohort. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(1):46–52

Aims. To assess the proportion of patients with distal radius fractures (DRFs) who were managed nonoperatively during the COVID-19 pandemic in accordance with the British Orthopaedic Association BOAST COVID-19 guidelines, who would have otherwise been considered for an operative intervention. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the radiographs and clinical notes of all patients with DRFs managed nonoperatively, following the publication of the BOAST COVID-19 guidelines on the management of urgent trauma between 26 March and 18 May 2020. Radiological parameters including radial height, radial inclination, intra-articular step-off, and volar tilt from post-reduction or post-application of cast radiographs were measured. The assumption was that if one radiological parameter exceeds the acceptable criteria, the patient would have been considered for an operative intervention in pre-COVID times. Results. Overall, 92 patients formed the cohort of this study with a mean age of 66 years (21 to 96); 84% (n = 77) were female and 16% (n = 15) were male. In total, 54% (n = 50) of patients met at least one radiological indication for operative intervention with a mean age of 68 years (21 to 96). Of these, 42% (n = 21) were aged < 65 years and 58% (29) were aged ≥ 65 years. Conclusion. More than half of all DRFs managed nonoperatively during the COVID-19 pandemic had at least one radiological indication to be considered for operative management pre-COVID. We anticipate a proportion of these cases will require corrective surgery in the future, which increases the load on corrective upper limb elective services. This should be accounted for when planning an exit strategy and the restart of elective surgery services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:612–616