Acute Hindfoot Nailing for Ankle Fractures: A Systematic Review of Indications and Outcomes

Reaming for Tibiotalocalcaneal Nailing Removes Only 10% of the Ankle and Subtalar Joints

OBJECTIVES

Tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) nailing in the setting of acute ankle trauma has become increasingly popular. No consensus exists as to whether formal joint preparation is necessary, although there is some concern that residual motion at unprepared joints may lead to implant loosening and/or breakage. The objective of this study was to quantify the proportion of tibiotalar and subtalar articular surface destruction that occurs during reaming for TTC nail fixation.

METHODS

Twelve cadaver lower extremities were procured. The specimens were pinned into neutral ankle and hindfoot alignment. A guidewire was inserted under fluoroscopy, followed by a 12-mm opening reamer. The specimens were then dissected, exposing the tibial plafond, talar dome, posterior facet of the talus, and posterior facet of the calcaneus. Images of each joint were obtained, and ImageJ software was used to calculate the total joint surface area and the area of articular destruction.

RESULTS

The mean proportion of articular cartilage destruction was 9.3%, 10.3%, 8.9%, and 10.3% for the tibial plafond, talar dome, posterior facets of the talus, and posterior facets of the calcaneus, respectively. No joint destruction was observed in the middle facets of the subtalar joint.

CONCLUSIONS

Reaming for TTC nail placement violates approximately 10% of each articular surface of the tibiotalar and subtalar joints. Retention of 90% of the articular surface may allow for residual motion at the joints and therefore potentially substantial stress on the implant. Formal joint preparation for the purposes of achieving fusion during TTC nail placement may be beneficial to prevent implant loosening or breakage.

Fix or Replace? Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Geriatric Lower Extremity Fractures: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Introduction

When considering treatment options for geriatric patients with lower extremity fractures, little is known about which outcomes are prioritized by patients. This study aimed to determine the patient preferences for outcomes after a geriatric lower extremity fracture.

Materials and Methods

We administered a discrete choice experiment survey to 150 patients who were at least 60 years of age and treated for a lower extremity fracture at a Level I trauma center. The discrete choice experiment presented study participants with 8 sets of hypothetical outcome comparisons, including joint preservation (yes or no), risk of reoperation at 6 months and 24 months, postoperative weightbearing status, disposition, and function as measured by return to baseline walking distance. We estimated the relative importance of these potential outcomes using multinomial logit modeling.

Results

The strongest patient preference was for maintained function after treatment (59%, P < .001), followed by reoperation within 6 months (12%, P < .001). Although patients generally favored joint preservation, patients were willing to change their preference in favor of joint replacement if it increased function (walking distance) by 13% (SE, 66%). Reducing the short-term reoperation risk (12%, P < .001) was more important to patients than reducing long-term reoperation risk (4%, P = .33). Disposition and weightbearing status were lesser priorities to patients (9%, P < .001 and 7%, P < .001, respectively).

Discussion

After a lower extremity fracture, geriatric patients prioritized maintained walking function. Avoiding short-term reoperation was more important than avoiding long-term reoperation. Joint preservation through fracture fixation was the preferred treatment of geriatric patients unless arthroplasty or arthrodesis provides a meaningful functional benefit. Hospital disposition and postoperative weightbearing status were less important to patients than the other included outcomes.

Conclusions

Geriatric patients strongly prioritize function over other outcomes after a lower extremity fracture.

Epidemiology & management of complex ankle fractures in the United Kingdom: A multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patient factors are known to contribute to decision making and treatment of ankle fractures. The presence of poor baseline mobility, diabetes, neuropathy, alcoholism, cognitive impairment, inflammatory arthritis or polytrauma can result in a higher risk of failure or complications. Limited evidence is available on the optimum management for this challenging cohort of patients herein described as complex ankle fractures. This UK multicentre study assessed and evaluated the epidemiology of ankle fractures complicated by significant comorbidity and patient factors and use of specialist surgical techniques such as hindfoot nails (HFN) / tibiotalarcalcaneal (TCC) nails and enhanced open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A UK-wide collaborative study was performed of adult distal AO43/AO44 fractures, associated with 1 or more of the patient factors listed above. Primary outcomes included patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical technique and implants. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and early post-operative weight bearing instructions. Statistical analysis was performed to assess patient and fracture characteristics on outcome, including propensity matching.

RESULTS

One-thousand three hundred and sixty patients, with at least one of the above complex factors, from 56 centres were included with a mean age of 53.1 years. 90.2% (1227) patients underwent primary fixation which included 78.9% (1073) standard open reduction internal fixations (ORIF), 3.25% (43) extended ORIF and 8.1% (111) primary HFN / TCC. Overall wound complications and thromboembolic events were similar in the hindfoot nail group and the ORIF group (11.7% vs 10.7%). Wound complications were greater in diabetic patients versus non-diabetic patients independent of fixation method (15.8% vs 9.0%). After propensity matching for comorbidities and fracture type, overall complications were lower in the hindfoot nail (11.8%) and extended ORIF groups (16.7%), than the standard ORIF group (18.6%).

CONCLUSION

Only a minority of complex ankle fractures are treated with specialised techniques (HFN/TCC or extended ORIF). Though more commonly used in older and frail patients their perceived advantages are often negated by a reluctance to bear weight early. These techniques demonstrated a better complication profile to standard ORIF but hindfoot nail with joint preparation for fusion was associated with more complications than hindfoot nail for fixation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

High-risk ankle fractures in high-risk older patients: to fix or nail?

INTRODUCTION

Optimal treatment of high-risk ankle fractures in older, comorbid patients is unknown. Results of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) versus tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) fusion nailing for the treatment of high-risk geriatric ankle fractures were investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Results of ORIF versus TTC fusion nailing were evaluated via retrospective case-control cohort study of 60 patients over age 50 with an open ankle fracture or one with at least 50% talar subluxation and at least 1 high-risk comorbidity: diabetes mellitus (DM), peripheral vascular disease, immunosuppression, active smoking, or a BMI > 35. The primary outcome was reoperation rate within 1-year post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include infection, peri-implant fracture, malunion/nonunion, mortality, length of stay, disposition, and hospital acquired complications.

RESULTS

Mean age was 71 (ORIF) and 68 (TTC). 12/47 (25.5%) ORIF cases were open fractures versus 4/14 (28.6%) with TTC. There were no significant differences between ORIF and TTC in 1-year reoperation rates (17% vs 21.4%), infection rates (12.8% vs 14.3%), or union rates (76.% vs 85.7%), respectively. One TTC patient sustained a peri-implant fracture treated nonoperatively. There were no significant differences in medical risk factors between groups other than a higher rate of DM in the TTC group, 42.6% vs 78.6%, p = 0.02. Incomplete functional outcome data in this challenging patient cohort precluded drawing conclusions.

CONCLUSION

ORIF and TTC fusion nailing result in comparable and acceptable reoperation, infection, and union rates in treating high-risk ankle fractures in patients over 50 with at least 1 major comorbidity for increased complications; further study is warranted.