• Glenn M Weinraub, Patrick Levine, Eric Shi, and Aarron Flowers.
• Attending Physician, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Permanente Medical Group, San Leandro, CA.
• J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017 Mar 1; 56 (2): 277-281.

AbstractUnstable medial malleolar fractures are treated with either standard open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or a percutaneous approach. The percutaneous approach avoids the potentially excessive soft tissue dissection associated with an open approach but can also result in inadequate anatomic reduction. No studies have compared the incidence of radiographic healing of medial malleolar fractures between an open approach and percutaneous fixation. A retrospective comparative study was performed at a single institution across multiple sites. Electronic medical records and digital radiographs were reviewed for 845 patients who had undergone either ORIF or percutaneous screw fixation (PSF) of a medial malleolar fracture. The interval to fracture healing was measured. Logistic regression analysis was used. Of the 490 included patients, 458 (93.44%) underwent standard ORIF and 32 (6.53%) underwent PSF. Patients who underwent ORIF were 5 times more likely to have a healed fracture at 8 weeks than were patients who had undergone PSF (p < .001). Compared with standard ORIF, PSF of medial malleolar fractures leads to an increased risk of an unhealed fracture at 8 weeks. This was likely due to a combination of soft tissue interposition within the fracture site and inadequate fluoroscopic reliability, leading to poor anatomic reduction and inaccurate fixation.Copyright © 2016 American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

25 keywords...

hide…