• Victor Lu, James Zhang, Andrew Zhou, Azeem Thahir, Jiang An Lim, and Matija Krkovic.
• School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, CB2 0SP United Kingdom. Electronic address: victorluwawa@yahoo.com.hk.
• Injury. 2022 Jun 1; 53 (6): 2259-2267.

BackgroundDespite the low incidence of pilon fractures amongst lower limb injuries, their high impact nature presents difficulties in surgical management and recovery. The high complication rate and long recovery times presents a challenge for surgeons and patients. Current literature is varied, with no universal treatment algorithm. We aim to highlight differences in outcomes and complications between open and closed pilon fractures, and between patients treated by open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or fine wire fixator (FWF) for open and closed fracture subgroups.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted at a major trauma centre including 135 patients over a 6-year period. Primary outcome was AOFAS score at 3, 6, and 12-months post-injury. Secondary outcomes included time to partial weight-bear (PWB) and full weight-bear (FWB), bone union time, and complications during the follow-up time. AO/OTA classification was used (43A: n = 23, 43B: n = 30, 43C: n = 82). Interobserver agreement was high for bone union time (kappa=0.882) and AO/OTA class (kappa=0.807).ResultsHigher AOFAS scores were seen in ORIF groups of both open and closed fractures, compared to FWF groups. The difference was not statistically significant apart from 12-month AOFAS score of 43C open fractures (p = 0.003) and in 43B closed fractures 3 and 6 months post-injury (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). The majority of ORIF subgroups, open and closed fractures, also had shorter time to PWB, FWB, time to union, and follow-up. Statistically significant differences were seen in the following cases: ORIF-treated 43B closed fracture subgroup had shorter time to PWB and FWB (p<0.001 and p = 0.017, respectively), ORIF-treated 43C closed fractures had shorter time to union (p = 0.005). Common complications for open fractures were non-union (24%), post-traumatic arthritis (16%); for closed fractures they were post-traumatic arthritis (24%), superficial infection (21%). All occurred more frequently in FWF-treated patients.ConclusionMost ORIF-treated subgroups in either open or closed pilon fractures showed better primary and secondary outcomes than FWF-treated subgroups, yet few were statistically significant. Overall, our use of a two-staged approach involving temporary external fixation, followed with ORIF or FWF achieved low complication rates and good functional recovery.Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

20 keywords...

hide…