Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 3 | Pages 227 - 235
18 Mar 2024
Su Y Wang Y Fang C Tu Y Chang C Kuan F Hsu K Shih C

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.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1496 - 1501
1 Nov 2017
Bali N Aktselis I Ramasamy A Mitchell S Fenton P

Aims

There has been an evolution recently in the management of unstable fractures of the ankle with a trend towards direct fixation of a posterior malleolar fragment. Within these fractures, Haraguchi type 2 fractures extend medially and often cannot be fixed using a standard posterolateral approach. Our aim was to describe the posteromedial approach to address these fractures and to assess its efficacy and safety.

Patients and Methods

We performed a review of 15 patients with a Haraguchi type 2 posterior malleolar fracture which was fixed using a posteromedial approach. Five patients underwent initial temporary spanning external fixation. The outcome was assessed at a median follow-up of 29 months (interquartile range (IQR) 17 to 36) using the Olerud and Molander score and radiographs were assessed for the quality of the reduction.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 6, Issue 7 | Pages 433 - 438
1 Jul 2017
Pan M Chai L Xue F Ding L Tang G Lv B

Objectives. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical stability and clinical outcome of external fixator combined with limited internal fixation (EFLIF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in treating Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures. Methods. Two types of fixation systems were selected for finite element analysis and a dual cohort study. Two fixation systems were simulated to fix the fracture in a finite element model. The relative displacement and stress distribution were analysed and compared. A total of 71 consecutive patients with closed Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the treatment to which they chose: the EFLIF group and the ORIF group. The radiological and clinical outcomes were evaluated and compared. Results. The relative displacement of the EFLIF was less than that of the plate (0.1363 mm to 0.1808 mm). The highest von Mises stress value on the plate was 33% higher than that on the EFLIF. A normal restoration of the Böhler angle was achieved in both groups. No significant difference was found in the clinical outcome on the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle Hindfoot Scale, or on the Visual Analogue Scale between the two groups (p > 0.05). Wound complications were more common in those who were treated with ORIF (p = 0.028). Conclusions. Both EFLIF and ORIF systems were tested to 160 N without failure, showing the new construct to be mechanically safe to use. Both EFLIF and ORIF could be effective in treating Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures. The EFLIF may be superior to ORIF in achieving biomechanical stability and less blood loss, shorter surgical time and hospital stay, and fewer wound complications. Cite this article: M. Pan, L. Chai, F. Xue, L. Ding, G. Tang, B. Lv. Comparisons of external fixator combined with limited internal fixation and open reduction and internal fixation for Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures: Finite element analysis and clinical outcome. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:433–438. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.2000640


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 7 | Pages 950 - 956
1 Jul 2015
Tsitsilonis S Schaser KD Wichlas F Haas NP Manegold S

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures of the ankle is increasing. However, little is known about the outcome of treatment and their management remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of periprosthetic fractures on the functional and radiological outcome of patients with a total ankle arthroplasty (TAA).

A total of 505 TAAs (488 patients) who underwent TAA were retrospectively evaluated for periprosthetic ankle fracture: these were then classified according to a recent classification which is orientated towards treatment. The outcome was evaluated clinically using the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score and a visual analogue scale for pain, and radiologically.

A total of 21 patients with a periprosthetic fracture of the ankle were identified. There were 13 women and eight men. The mean age of the patients was 63 years (48 to 74). Thus, the incidence of fracture was 4.17%.

There were 11 intra-operative and ten post-operative fractures, of which eight were stress fractures and two were traumatic. The prosthesis was stable in all patients. Five stress fractures were treated conservatively and the remaining three were treated operatively.

A total of 17 patients (81%) were examined clinically and radiologically at a mean follow-up of 53.5 months (12 to 112). The mean AOFAS score at follow-up was 79.5 (21 to 100). The mean AOFAS score in those with an intra-operative fracture was 87.6 (80 to 100) and for those with a stress fracture, which were mainly because of varus malpositioning, was 67.3 (21 to 93). Periprosthetic fractures of the ankle do not necessarily adversely affect the clinical outcome, provided that a treatment algorithm is implemented with the help of a new classification system.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:950–6.