The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study : a national multicentre retrospective review of practice in implant choice, fixation methods, and outcomes in fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures.

IF 3.1 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
William G Fishley, Thomas Baldock, Alan J Hilley, Rory Morrison, Paul Baker, Dave Townshend, Mohamed Imam, Tony Antonios, Zuhaib Shahid, Joshua Luck, Jonathan Kent, Ian Crowther, Karolina Mazur, Thomas Barwick, Hashim Al-Musawi, Temitope Simon Adesina, Bal Dhinsa, Sean M A Garcia, Annis Maatough, Avadhoot P Kantak, Aayush Lal, Eltayeb Shammeseldin, N Jane Madeley, Catherine Warwick, Angus Paterson, Anthony Gould, Robyn Brown, Alexandros Stamatpoulos, Krishna Boddu, David Chrastek, Praveen Gopinath, Peter Giannoudis, Hira Rizwi, Ayobami Asaju, Maximilian Ellacott, Aabid Samaullah, Armirohammad Heidari, Adeel Ditta, Chandra Bhattia, Alex Griffiths, Luke Guiot, David Townshend, Adam Rohman, Petr Kovarik, Togay Koҫ, John Hardie, Khaled Al-Kharouf, Jagannath Chakravarthy, Chryssa Neo, Matthew Gray, Colin Shaw, Charlotte Angel, Daniel Francis, Alasdair Barrie, Owen Diamond, Catherine Gilmore, Rebekah Mercer, Stephen Aldridge, Humayoon Zaheen, Dafalla Elamin, Paul Baker, Prabha Nagalingam, Stuart Irvine, Chinedum Violet Onwuekwe, Daniel Dowen, Glen Alder, Patrick Duffy, Rory Morrison, Mohamed Elgendy, Philip Vaughan, Vidhya Chauhan, Caroline Selvakumar, Jonathan Barrow, Jack Allport, Amit Kumar Yadav
{"title":"The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study : a national multicentre retrospective review of practice in implant choice, fixation methods, and outcomes in fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures.","authors":"William G Fishley, Thomas Baldock, Alan J Hilley, Rory Morrison, Paul Baker, Dave Townshend, Mohamed Imam, Tony Antonios, Zuhaib Shahid, Joshua Luck, Jonathan Kent, Ian Crowther, Karolina Mazur, Thomas Barwick, Hashim Al-Musawi, Temitope Simon Adesina, Bal Dhinsa, Sean M A Garcia, Annis Maatough, Avadhoot P Kantak, Aayush Lal, Eltayeb Shammeseldin, N Jane Madeley, Catherine Warwick, Angus Paterson, Anthony Gould, Robyn Brown, Alexandros Stamatpoulos, Krishna Boddu, David Chrastek, Praveen Gopinath, Peter Giannoudis, Hira Rizwi, Ayobami Asaju, Maximilian Ellacott, Aabid Samaullah, Armirohammad Heidari, Adeel Ditta, Chandra Bhattia, Alex Griffiths, Luke Guiot, David Townshend, Adam Rohman, Petr Kovarik, Togay Koҫ, John Hardie, Khaled Al-Kharouf, Jagannath Chakravarthy, Chryssa Neo, Matthew Gray, Colin Shaw, Charlotte Angel, Daniel Francis, Alasdair Barrie, Owen Diamond, Catherine Gilmore, Rebekah Mercer, Stephen Aldridge, Humayoon Zaheen, Dafalla Elamin, Paul Baker, Prabha Nagalingam, Stuart Irvine, Chinedum Violet Onwuekwe, Daniel Dowen, Glen Alder, Patrick Duffy, Rory Morrison, Mohamed Elgendy, Philip Vaughan, Vidhya Chauhan, Caroline Selvakumar, Jonathan Barrow, Jack Allport, Amit Kumar Yadav","doi":"10.1302/2633-1462.67.BJO-2025-0009.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>In fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures, the AO Foundation advocates using a lag screw and one-third tubular neutralization plate for simple patterns. Where a lag screw cannot be placed, bridging fixation is required. A local pilot service evaluation previously identified variance in use of locking plates in all patterns with significant cost implications. The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study aimed to evaluate current practice and implant use across the UK, and review outcomes and complication rates between different fibula fixation methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was supported by CORNET, the North East orthopaedic trainee research collaborative, and the British Orthopaedic Trainee Association (BOTA). Data were collected using REDCap software from 22 centres in the UK retrospectively for a one-year period between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019 on injury mechanism, fracture characteristics, comorbidities, fixation, and complications. Follow-up data were collected to at least two years from surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,471 ankle fractures which involved fixation of the fibula were analyzed; a one-third tubular plate was used in 883 cases (59.7%), a locking plate in 470 cases (31.8%), and other methods in 118 cases (8.1%). There was significant difference between centres (p < 0.001) in terms of the implant type which was used. Other factors associated with implant type were age, diabetes, osteoporosis, open fractures, and comminuted fractures. Incidence of lateral wound breakdown and infection was higher in locking plates than one-third tubular plates (Lateral wound breakdown p = 0.008, Infection p = 0.039) in AO44B fractures. There was no significant difference in nonunion, fixation failure, or removal of metalware.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is significant variation in practice in the UK in implant use for fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures. If a locking plate is used unnecessarily, where a one-third tubular shows equivalent outcomes, this incurs additional cost and may increase the risk of lateral wound complications. We would encourage surgeons with high locking plate usage to evaluate their own unit's practice against these data.</p>","PeriodicalId":34103,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Open","volume":"6 7","pages":"841-849"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12270632/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.67.BJO-2025-0009.R1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: In fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures, the AO Foundation advocates using a lag screw and one-third tubular neutralization plate for simple patterns. Where a lag screw cannot be placed, bridging fixation is required. A local pilot service evaluation previously identified variance in use of locking plates in all patterns with significant cost implications. The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study aimed to evaluate current practice and implant use across the UK, and review outcomes and complication rates between different fibula fixation methods.

Methods: The study was supported by CORNET, the North East orthopaedic trainee research collaborative, and the British Orthopaedic Trainee Association (BOTA). Data were collected using REDCap software from 22 centres in the UK retrospectively for a one-year period between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019 on injury mechanism, fracture characteristics, comorbidities, fixation, and complications. Follow-up data were collected to at least two years from surgery.

Results: A total of 1,471 ankle fractures which involved fixation of the fibula were analyzed; a one-third tubular plate was used in 883 cases (59.7%), a locking plate in 470 cases (31.8%), and other methods in 118 cases (8.1%). There was significant difference between centres (p < 0.001) in terms of the implant type which was used. Other factors associated with implant type were age, diabetes, osteoporosis, open fractures, and comminuted fractures. Incidence of lateral wound breakdown and infection was higher in locking plates than one-third tubular plates (Lateral wound breakdown p = 0.008, Infection p = 0.039) in AO44B fractures. There was no significant difference in nonunion, fixation failure, or removal of metalware.

Conclusion: There is significant variation in practice in the UK in implant use for fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures. If a locking plate is used unnecessarily, where a one-third tubular shows equivalent outcomes, this incurs additional cost and may increase the risk of lateral wound complications. We would encourage surgeons with high locking plate usage to evaluate their own unit's practice against these data.

Abstract Image

骨折踝关节植入物回顾(FAIR)研究:一项针对踝关节骨折腓骨固定的植入物选择、固定方法和结果的全国性多中心回顾性研究。
目的:在踝关节骨折的腓骨固定中,AO基金会提倡使用拉力螺钉和三分之一管中和钢板固定。如果不能放置拉力螺钉,则需要桥接固定。一项当地试点服务评估先前确定了在所有模式中使用锁定板的差异,并产生了重大的成本影响。骨折踝关节植入物回顾(FAIR)研究旨在评估英国目前的实践和植入物的使用,并回顾不同腓骨固定方法之间的结果和并发症发生率。方法:本研究得到了CORNET、东北骨科实习生研究合作组织和英国骨科实习生协会(BOTA)的支持。在2019年1月1日至2019年12月31日期间,使用REDCap软件从英国22个中心回顾性收集数据,包括损伤机制、骨折特征、合并症、固定和并发症。随访数据收集至手术后至少两年。结果:共分析了1471例踝部骨折伴腓骨固定;采用三分之一管式钢板883例(59.7%),锁定钢板470例(31.8%),其他方法118例(8.1%)。在使用的种植体类型方面,中心之间存在显著差异(p < 0.001)。与植入物类型相关的其他因素有年龄、糖尿病、骨质疏松、开放性骨折和粉碎性骨折。AO44B骨折锁定钢板外侧创面破裂和感染的发生率高于1 / 3的管状钢板(外侧创面破裂p = 0.008,感染p = 0.039)。在骨不连、固定失败或金属器具移除方面,两组无显著差异。结论:在英国,在踝关节骨折中使用假体固定腓骨的做法有很大的不同。如果不必要地使用锁定钢板,而三分之一管的效果相同,则会产生额外的费用,并可能增加外侧伤口并发症的风险。我们鼓励使用高锁定钢板的外科医生根据这些数据评估自己单位的实践。
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
Bone & Joint Open
Bone & Joint Open ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信