Ankle fracture configuration following treatment with and without arthroscopic-assisted reduction and fixation

Effectiveness of Concurrent Ankle Arthroscopy During Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Malleolar Fractures in Prevention of Common Short-Term Complications

Rotational malleolar fractures result in a high prevalence of intra-articular pathologies; therefore, routine arthroscopic assessment may be beneficial in the surgical treatment of ankle fractures. However, the clinical studies regarding the effectiveness of arthroscopy thus far have mixed results. We investigated the efficacy of concurrent arthroscopy during the treatment of malleolar fractures using a large U.S. healthcare data set. Those who had arthroscopy were compared with those who did not, during the surgical treatment of malleolar fractures, while adjusting for covariates of clinical relevance. The analysis showed that concurrent arthroscopy is protective against postoperative repeat surgery (OR = 0.13, 95CI = 0.02-0.41) and wound dehiscence (OR = 0.18, 95CI = 0.03-0.56). The number of added arthroscopy cases needed to avoid one repeat surgery was 74, while that of wound dehiscence was 52. Further studies are needed to determine if routine use of arthroscopy is justifiable in the surgical treatment of malleolar fractures, given the additional costs and time to the healthcare system.

Arthroscopically assisted internal fixation for treatment of acute ankle fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopically assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) allows for the assessment of joint congruity following anatomic reduction, identification of occult intra-articular lesions, and treatment of traumatic intra-articular pathologies. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide evidence on whether ARIF is an alternative treatment protocol for ankle fractures.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched independently by two investigators from the inception dates to October 9, 2022, for comparative studies. The risk-of-bias tool of the Cochrane Collaboration for Randomized Controlled Trials and the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) were used for assessing the methodological quality. Outcomes were evaluated in terms of the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Scale, post-operative complications, arthroscopic findings, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, and operation time. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.4 was used to perform the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 10 trials involving 755 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results revealed that ARIF for ankle fractures was superior regarding functional outcomes and VAS scores when compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). No significant difference was noted in the post-operative complication rate and the operation time between the ARIF and ORIF groups. A high incidence of chondral or osteochondral lesions (OCLs), ligamentous injuries, and loose bodies with ankle fractures was found by ankle arthroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

ARIF for ankle fractures might be beneficial to offer superior functional outcomes and VAS score than ORIF. Orthopedic surgeons should take a high incidence of OCLs and ligamentous injuries into consideration for the treatment of acute ankle fractures. We believe that with the increase in surgical experience, the occurrence of post-operative complications and the extension of operation time will no longer be a potential concern for surgeons.

Arthroscopically assisted versus open reduction internal fixation for ankle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Open reduction and internal fixation were routinely used to treat patients with unstable ankle fractures (ORIF). However, some patients may experience persistent ankle pain and disability following ORIF due to untreated intra-articular lesions. Moreover, ankle fractures may be treated with arthroscopically assisted reduction and internal fixation (ARIF). This study aimed to compare the feasibility and benefits of ARIF versus ORIF for ankle fractures.

METHODS

We performed this meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search was conducted for comparative studies comparing ARIF and ORIF for ankle fractures. Nine studies were included in the analysis of clinical and secondary outcomes. In summary, we calculated the mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR), confidence interval, and p value.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis demonstrated that the ARIF group achieved a higher Olerud-Molander Ankle (OMA) score (MD: 6.6; 95% CI 0.20 to 13.0; p = 0.04) and lower visual analog scale (VAS) score (MD: - 0.36; 95% CI - 0.64 to - 0.10; p = 0.01) at the final follow-up. Nevertheless, the smallest treatment effect of OMA score and VAS score did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). There were longer surgery time (MD: 15.0; 95% CI 10.7 to 19.3; p < 0.01) and lower complication rates (RR: 0.53; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.89; p = 0.02) in ARIF compared with ORIF. The random-effect model suggested no significant difference in the arthritis change rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the results of this meta-analysis indicated that ARIF and ORIF are comparable in terms of providing pain relief and improving function for patients with ankle fractures. Therefore, the choice between the two techniques should be based on the patient's individual factors and the surgeon's personal preference.

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Arthroscopically Assisted Ankle Facture Treatment Versus Conventional Treatment

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the prospective, longitudinal outcome after arthroscopically assisted open reduction and internal fixation (AORIF) and to compare the results with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in complex ankle fractures.

METHODS

Acute, closed, bimalleolar equivalent, bimalleolar, or trimalleolar ankle fractures were included. The AORIF cohort was enrolled prospectively. The ORIF group was identified from a retrospective database. The same inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The only difference was the additional arthroscopy in the AORIF cohort. The patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) following AORIF was assessed at 1 and 4 years of follow-up using the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) and Tegner activity scale (TAS). The AORIF cohort was propensity score matched (nearest-neighbor matching) to the ORIF database. The OMAS and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) were compared between the resulting groups. Nonparametric statistics were applied; values are presented as median (interquartile range). Twenty-six AORIF patients had a prospective 4-year follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant differences (1 year vs 4 years) were identified for the OMAS (90 [10] vs 90 [11]) and TAS (4 [2] vs 5 [2]). The severity of the cartilage lesions (International Cartilage Repair Society [ICRS] grade <4 vs ICRS of 4) had no significant influence on the PROMs. Twenty-five patients per cohort (AORIF vs ORIF) were matched. The OMAS (90 [13] vs 75 [40]; P = .008) and FAAM Activities of Daily Living (ADL; 96 [11] vs 88 [30]; P = .034) revealed significantly better outcomes for AORIF. More patients in the AORIF cohort returned to sport (96% vs 77%; P = .035), with a higher FAAM Sports score (88 [37] vs 56 [47]; P = .008).

CONCLUSION

AORIF for complex ankle fractures led to consistently good to excellent results. The propensity score-matched analysis revealed a significantly better outcome 4 years after surgery for AORIF compared with ORIF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Arthroscopically Assisted Internal Fixation of Foot and Ankle Fractures: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing fixation for foot and ankle fractures may experience poor outcomes despite achieving apparent anatomic reduction. Adjunct arthroscopy to identify missed concomitant injuries and subtle displacements has been proposed as a vehicle to enhance functional results for these patients. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the literature regarding arthroscopically assisted open reduction and internal fixation (AAORIF) methods for commonly encountered foot and ankle injuries including pilon, ankle, and calcaneus fractures published to date.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed using the PubMed database to access all studies reporting on arthroscopically assisted internal fixation methods for pilon, ankle, and calcaneus fractures. Relevant publications were analyzed for details on their respective study designs, the operative technique used, clinical outcomes, outcome instruments used, and reported complications.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies were included in this review. Two studies on pilon fractures, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and case series with a total of 243 patients, met inclusion criteria. Postoperative articular reductions, bone union, and Mazur scores were found to be significantly better for those using adjunct arthroscopy when compared to those with no arthroscopy use. Patient-reported outcomes were overall reported as excellent for most patients, with no difference in patient-reported outcomes reported in the RCT. For ankle fractures, a total of 17 studies comprising of 2 systematic reviews, 1 meta-analysis, 2 RCTs, 5 retrospective comparative studies, 6 case series, and 1 case-control study met inclusion criteria for this review. Results were mixed, though the overall consensus was that arthroscopy use may help to better visualize concomitant intra-articular injuries and is generally considered safe with at least comparable outcomes to conventional methods. For the calcaneus, 13 studies met the criteria. Two studies were review papers, 8 were case series, and 3 were retrospective comparative studies. A total of 308 patients with 316 fractures formed the basis of analysis. In general, the studies found comparable functional outcomes between with or without arthroscopy use, but found that anatomical reductions were significantly improved with the use of arthroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopy shows promise as a valuable adjunct tool for internal fixation of foot and ankle fractures, though definitive conclusions as to its clinical significance have yet to be drawn because of limited evidence. Potential advantages related to the direct visualization of the fracture site and minimally invasive nature of arthroscopy were suggested throughout studies examined in this review. The presence of intra-articular pathology may lead to unexpectedly poor outcomes seen in some patients who undergo surgical fixation of ankle fractures with an otherwise anatomic reduction on postoperative radiographs; the ability to diagnose and address these lesions with arthroscopy, therefore, has the potential to improve patient outcomes. To date, however, available literature has not shown that significant improvements in anatomical reductions and treatment of these intra-articular injuries provide any improvement in outcomes over standard fixation methods. Few prospective randomized controlled studies have been performed comparing these 2 operative techniques, rendering any suggestion that AAORIF improves clinical outcomes over traditional open fixation difficult to justify. Further research is indicated for what may be a potentially promising surgical adjunct prior to advocating for its routine use in patients.

[Application of three-dimensional printing technology in treatment of internal or external ankle distal avulsed fracture]

Objective

To explore the effectiveness and advantage of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology in treatment of internal or external ankle distal avulsed fracture.

Methods

Between January 2015 and January 2017, 20 patients with distal avulsed fracture of internal or external ankle were treated with the 3D guidance of shape-blocking steel plate fixation (group A), and 18 patients were treated with traditional plaster external fixation (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, injury cause, disease duration, fracture side, and fracture type between 2 groups ( P>0.05). Recording the fracture healing rate, fracture healing time, the time of starting to ankle functional exercise, residual ankle pain, and evaluating ankle function recovery of both groups by the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score.

Results

All patients were followed up 8-24 months, with an average of 15.5 months. In group A: all incisions healed by first intention, the time of starting to ankle functional exercise was (14±3) days, fracture healing rate was 100%, and the fracture healing time was (10.15±2.00) weeks. At 6 months, the AOFAS score was 90.35±4.65. Among them, 13 patients were excellent and 7 patients were good. All patients had no post-operative incision infection, residual ankle pain, or dysfunction during the follow-up. In group B: the time of starting to ankle functional exercise was (40±10) days, the fracture healing rate was 94.44%, and the fracture healing time was (13.83±7.49) weeks. At 6 months, the AOFAS score was 79.28±34.28. Among them, 15 patients were good, 2 patients were medium, and 1 patient was poor. During the follow-up, 3 patients (16.67%) had pain of ankle joint with different degrees. There were significant differences in the postoperative fracture healing rate, fracture healing time, the time of starting to ankle functional exercise, and postoperative AOFAS score between 2 groups ( P<0.05).

Conclusion

Application of 3D printing technology in treatment of internal or external ankle distal avulsed fracture is simple, safe, reliable, and effective. In particular, it is an ideal treatment for avulsed fracture.

Effectiveness of arthroscopically assisted surgery for ankle fractures: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis was performed to determine whether the arthroscopically assisted open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for ankle fractures is more beneficial than the conventional ORIF.

METHODS

Articles in electronic medial databases were searched between March 1983 and August 2016, including Pubmed and SCOPUS. We included the studies with comparative design comparing the surgical outcomes between the arthroscopically assisted ORIF for ankle fractures and the conventional ORIF. Finally, two RCTs and two retrospective comparative studies were included for analysis. Mean and standard deviation (SD) of postoperative functional scores, number of subjects, and P-values were extracted from the studies. In addition, postoperative follow-up period, fracture type, and study quality were collected.

RESULTS

The pooled effect size of the four studies 0.535 (95% CI, 0.247-0.823) in Hedges's g, which favored the arthroscopically assisted ORIF over conventional ORIF. There was no evidence of publication bias in funnel plot and in Egger's test (p=0.534).

CONCLUSION

The arthroscopically assisted ORIF for ankle fractures were more beneficial than the conventional ORIF in the current evidences. However, since it needs more medical cost and longer operation time, possible additional complications and cost effectiveness are to be validated in future studies.