Posterior malleolar ankle fractures: predictors of outcome. (14th September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Blom, Robin P.; Hayat, Batur; Al-Dirini, Rami M. A.; Sierevelt, Inger; Kerkhoffs, Gino M. M. J.; Goslings, J. Carel; Jaarsma, Ruurd L.; Doornberg, Job N.
• Is Part Of: Bone & joint journal. Volume 102B:Number 9(2020)
• Page Start: 1229
• Page End: 1241
• Publication Date: 2020-09-14
• Subjects: Ankle -- Posterior malleolus -- Fracture -- Computed tomography -- Quantitative fracture mapping -- Gap -- Step-off -- Predictors -- Outcome; Bones -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Joints -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; 617.47005
• DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B9.BJJ-2019-1660.R1
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2049-4394

Abstract

Abstract : Aims: The primary aim of this study was to address the hypothesis that fracture morphology might be more important than posterior malleolar fragment size in rotational type posterior malleolar ankle fractures (PMAFs). The secondary aim was to identify clinically important predictors of outcome for each respective PMAF-type, to challenge the current dogma that surgical decision-making should be based on fragment size. Methods: This observational prospective cohort study included 70 patients with operatively treated rotational type PMAFs, respectively: 23 Haraguchi Type I (large posterolateral-oblique), 22 Type II (two-part posterolateral and posteromedial), and 25 (avulsion-) Type III. There was no standardized protocol on how to address the PMAFs and CT-imaging was used to classify fracture morphology and quality of postoperative syndesmotic reduction. Quantitative 3D-CT (Q3DCT) was used to assess the quality of fracture reduction, respectively: the proportion of articular involvement; residual intra-articular: gap, step-off, and 3D-displacement; and residual gap and step-off at the fibular notch. These predictors were correlated with the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) at two-years follow-up. Results: Bivariate analyses revealed that fracture morphology (p = 0.039) as well as fragment size (p = 0.007) were significantly associated with the FAOS. However, in multivariate analyses, fracture morphology (p = 0.001) (but not fragment size (p = 0.432)) and the residual intra-articular gap(s) (p = 0.009) were significantly associated. Haraguchi Type-II PMAFs had poorer FAOS scores compared with Types I and III. Multivariate analyses identified the following independent predictors: step-off in Type I; none of the Q3DCT-measurements in Type II, and quality of syndesmotic reduction in small-avulsion Type III PMAFs. Conclusion: PMAFs are three separate entities based on fracture morphology, with different predictors of outcome for each PMAF type. The current debate on whether or not to fix PMAFs needs to be refined to determine which morphological subtype benefits from fixation. In PMAFs, fracture morphology should guide treatment instead of fragment size. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1229–1241.