Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of the Posterior Malleolus Fragment in Ankle Fractures Improves the Patient-Rated Outcome: A Systematic Review.

IF 2.4 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Rainer Christoph Miksch, Viktoria Herterich, Alexej Barg, Wolfgang Böcker, Hans Polzer, Sebastian Felix Baumbach
{"title":"Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of the Posterior Malleolus Fragment in Ankle Fractures Improves the Patient-Rated Outcome: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Rainer Christoph Miksch,&nbsp;Viktoria Herterich,&nbsp;Alexej Barg,&nbsp;Wolfgang Böcker,&nbsp;Hans Polzer,&nbsp;Sebastian Felix Baumbach","doi":"10.1177/10711007231165771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The best treatment strategy for fractures to the posterior malleolus (PM) is still intensively debated. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the patient-rated outcome following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for fractures of the PM to either closed reduction using AP screws (CRIF) or no treatment in bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic literature research (MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, Scopus, Central and EMBASE) according to the PICOS and PRISMA guidelines. Eligible were studies comparing the outcome following ORIF to any other treatment strategy for fractures to the posterior malleolus in isolated bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies were eligible for a qualitative analysis and 6 for a quantitative analysis. Overall, a considerable heterogeneity among the studies was observed. The most commonly used outcome score was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score (AOFAS). The final follow-up ranged from 12 to 160 months. Four studies compared ORIF to CRIF of the PM. The quantitative analysis revealed significantly better AOFAS scores for ORIF (90.9 vs 83.4 points; <i>P</i> < .001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%). Three studies compared ORIF to untreated PM fragment. The quantitative analysis again revealed superior AOFAS scores for ORIF (92.0 vs 82.5 points; <i>P</i> < .001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 99%). A similar trend was observed for the Ankle Fracture Scoring System and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle Questionnaire scores as well as the quality of reduction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite a considerable heterogeneity, the data available point to a superior outcome following ORIF for fractures to the PM when compared to CRIF or no treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":12446,"journal":{"name":"Foot & Ankle International","volume":"44 8","pages":"727-737"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c9/4b/10.1177_10711007231165771.PMC10394961.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & Ankle International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10711007231165771","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The best treatment strategy for fractures to the posterior malleolus (PM) is still intensively debated. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the patient-rated outcome following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for fractures of the PM to either closed reduction using AP screws (CRIF) or no treatment in bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures.

Methods: Systematic literature research (MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, Scopus, Central and EMBASE) according to the PICOS and PRISMA guidelines. Eligible were studies comparing the outcome following ORIF to any other treatment strategy for fractures to the posterior malleolus in isolated bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures.

Results: Twelve studies were eligible for a qualitative analysis and 6 for a quantitative analysis. Overall, a considerable heterogeneity among the studies was observed. The most commonly used outcome score was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score (AOFAS). The final follow-up ranged from 12 to 160 months. Four studies compared ORIF to CRIF of the PM. The quantitative analysis revealed significantly better AOFAS scores for ORIF (90.9 vs 83.4 points; P < .001; I2 = 0%). Three studies compared ORIF to untreated PM fragment. The quantitative analysis again revealed superior AOFAS scores for ORIF (92.0 vs 82.5 points; P < .001; I2 = 99%). A similar trend was observed for the Ankle Fracture Scoring System and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle Questionnaire scores as well as the quality of reduction.

Conclusion: Despite a considerable heterogeneity, the data available point to a superior outcome following ORIF for fractures to the PM when compared to CRIF or no treatment.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

踝关节骨折后踝碎片切开复位内固定可改善患者评价的预后:一项系统综述。
背景:后踝骨折(PM)的最佳治疗策略仍有激烈的争论。本系统综述的目的是比较双踝或三踝踝关节骨折开放复位内固定(ORIF)与AP螺钉闭合复位(CRIF)或不治疗的PM骨折患者评价的结果。方法:根据PICOS和PRISMA指南进行系统文献研究(MEDLINE (PubMed)、CINAHL、Scopus、Central和EMBASE)。符合条件的研究是比较ORIF与任何其他治疗策略治疗孤立性双踝或三踝踝关节骨折后踝骨折的结果。结果:12项研究符合定性分析,6项符合定量分析。总的来说,观察到研究之间存在相当大的异质性。最常用的结局评分是美国矫形足踝协会的踝关节-后足评分(AOFAS)。最终随访时间为12至160个月。四项研究比较了ORIF和PM的CRIF。定量分析显示,ORIF患者的AOFAS评分明显高于对照组(90.9分vs 83.4分;p i2 = 0%)。三项研究比较了ORIF和未治疗的PM片段。定量分析再次显示ORIF的AOFAS评分更高(92.0分vs 82.5分;p i2 = 99%)。踝关节骨折评分系统和美国骨科医师学会足部和踝关节问卷评分以及复位质量也出现了类似的趋势。结论:尽管存在相当大的异质性,但现有数据表明,与CRIF或不治疗相比,ORIF治疗PM骨折的结果更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Foot & Ankle International
Foot & Ankle International 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
144
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Foot & Ankle International (FAI), in publication since 1980, is the official journal of the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS). This monthly medical journal emphasizes surgical and medical management as it relates to the foot and ankle with a specific focus on reconstructive, trauma, and sports-related conditions utilizing the latest technological advances. FAI offers original, clinically oriented, peer-reviewed research articles presenting new approaches to foot and ankle pathology and treatment, current case reviews, and technique tips addressing the management of complex problems. This journal is an ideal resource for highly-trained orthopaedic foot and ankle specialists and allied health care providers. The journal’s Founding Editor, Melvin H. Jahss, MD (deceased), served from 1980-1988. He was followed by Kenneth A. Johnson, MD (deceased) from 1988-1993; Lowell D. Lutter, MD (deceased) from 1993-2004; and E. Greer Richardson, MD from 2005-2007. David B. Thordarson, MD, assumed the role of Editor-in-Chief in 2008. The journal focuses on the following areas of interest: • Surgery • Wound care • Bone healing • Pain management • In-office orthotic systems • Diabetes • Sports medicine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信