Mini Fragment T-Plate Fixation for Medial Malleolar Fractures Achieves Comparable Outcomes to Small Fragment Screw Fixation Without Increased Complication Risk.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Emily Lau, Rachit Saggar, Abdulganeey Olawin, Kevin Li, Gele Moloney
{"title":"Mini Fragment T-Plate Fixation for Medial Malleolar Fractures Achieves Comparable Outcomes to Small Fragment Screw Fixation Without Increased Complication Risk.","authors":"Emily Lau, Rachit Saggar, Abdulganeey Olawin, Kevin Li, Gele Moloney","doi":"10.1097/BOT.0000000000003294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare clinical outcomes between mini fragment T-plate (MFTP) fixation and traditional small fragment screw (SFS) fixation for medial malleolar ankle fractures, with a focus on complication rates and fracture patterns.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Design: Retrospective comparative cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Single academic level I trauma center.</p><p><strong>Patient selection criteria: </strong>Inclusion criteria: age ≥18 years, OTA/AO type 44 medial malleolar fractures treated with either MFTP (2.0 or 2.4 mm) or SFS (3.5 bicortical or 4.0mm partially threaded) from November 2016 to August 2023, and minimum 6-month radiographic and clinical follow-up. Exclusion criteria: prior ipsilateral ankle surgery, vertical fractures not amendable to screw fixation alone.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Medial malleolar fracture fixation with one of the aforementioned constructs.Outcome Measures and Comparisons: Primary outcomes compared between MFTP and SFS groups included infection rates, nonunion rates, and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes included fracture pattern analysis and time to weight bearing. Statistical analysis used chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Student's t-test for continuous variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 194 consecutive patients, 141 met inclusion criteria: 68 MFTP (age 47.1±15.9 years, 72% female) and 73 SFS (age 51.0±17.6 years, 64% female). No significant demographic differences were observed between groups with regards to age (p = 0.168), BMI (p = 0.107), sex (p = 0.393), smoking status (p = 0.556), nor presence of diabetes (p = 0.499). Fracture pattern analysis using the Herscovici classification revealed that low transverse fractures (Type B) were treated with MFTP in 94% of cases vs SFS in 6% (p<0.001), while high transverse fractures showed a more balanced treatment distribution (47% versus 53% SFS versus (p=0.865)). Comparing MFTP with SFS fixation, rates of infection (10.3% vs 8.3% respectively, p=0.777), unplanned reoperation rates (7.0% vs 10.0% respectively, p=0.780), and symptomatic hardware requiring reoperation (4.4% vs 2.7% respectively, p=0.672) were comparable. There was no failure of medial malleolar fixation in either group. One nonunion occurred in the MFTP group and one in the SFS group (p=1.000). Presence of an open fracture in the MFTP and SFS groups was significantly different at 4.4% and 19.4% respectively (p=0.009).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MFTP demonstrated comparable outcomes and complication rates to SFS fixation for medial malleolar ankle fractures. These findings support MFTP as a viable alternative for medial malleolar fixation where fragment morphology may preclude safe dual-screw placement.</p><p><strong>Level of clinical evidence: </strong>3, Therapeutic Cohort Study.</p>","PeriodicalId":16644,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000003294","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes between mini fragment T-plate (MFTP) fixation and traditional small fragment screw (SFS) fixation for medial malleolar ankle fractures, with a focus on complication rates and fracture patterns.

Methods: Design: Retrospective comparative cohort study.

Setting: Single academic level I trauma center.

Patient selection criteria: Inclusion criteria: age ≥18 years, OTA/AO type 44 medial malleolar fractures treated with either MFTP (2.0 or 2.4 mm) or SFS (3.5 bicortical or 4.0mm partially threaded) from November 2016 to August 2023, and minimum 6-month radiographic and clinical follow-up. Exclusion criteria: prior ipsilateral ankle surgery, vertical fractures not amendable to screw fixation alone.

Intervention: Medial malleolar fracture fixation with one of the aforementioned constructs.Outcome Measures and Comparisons: Primary outcomes compared between MFTP and SFS groups included infection rates, nonunion rates, and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes included fracture pattern analysis and time to weight bearing. Statistical analysis used chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and Student's t-test for continuous variables.

Results: From 194 consecutive patients, 141 met inclusion criteria: 68 MFTP (age 47.1±15.9 years, 72% female) and 73 SFS (age 51.0±17.6 years, 64% female). No significant demographic differences were observed between groups with regards to age (p = 0.168), BMI (p = 0.107), sex (p = 0.393), smoking status (p = 0.556), nor presence of diabetes (p = 0.499). Fracture pattern analysis using the Herscovici classification revealed that low transverse fractures (Type B) were treated with MFTP in 94% of cases vs SFS in 6% (p<0.001), while high transverse fractures showed a more balanced treatment distribution (47% versus 53% SFS versus (p=0.865)). Comparing MFTP with SFS fixation, rates of infection (10.3% vs 8.3% respectively, p=0.777), unplanned reoperation rates (7.0% vs 10.0% respectively, p=0.780), and symptomatic hardware requiring reoperation (4.4% vs 2.7% respectively, p=0.672) were comparable. There was no failure of medial malleolar fixation in either group. One nonunion occurred in the MFTP group and one in the SFS group (p=1.000). Presence of an open fracture in the MFTP and SFS groups was significantly different at 4.4% and 19.4% respectively (p=0.009).

Conclusion: MFTP demonstrated comparable outcomes and complication rates to SFS fixation for medial malleolar ankle fractures. These findings support MFTP as a viable alternative for medial malleolar fixation where fragment morphology may preclude safe dual-screw placement.

Level of clinical evidence: 3, Therapeutic Cohort Study.

小碎片t型钢板内固定治疗内踝骨折与小碎片螺钉内固定效果相当,且并发症风险不增加。
目的:比较小碎片t型钢板(MFTP)内固定与传统小碎片螺钉(SFS)内固定治疗踝关节内侧外踝骨折的临床效果,并比较并发症发生率和骨折类型。方法:设计:回顾性比较队列研究。环境:单一学术一级创伤中心。患者选择标准:纳入标准:年龄≥18岁,2016年11月至2023年8月期间接受MFTP(2.0或2.4 mm)或SFS(3.5双皮质或4.0mm部分螺纹)治疗的OTA/AO型44内踝骨折,至少6个月的x线片和临床随访。排除标准:既往同侧踝关节手术,垂直骨折不能单独螺钉固定。干预措施:内踝骨折内固定采用上述结构之一。结果测量和比较:MFTP组和SFS组比较的主要结果包括感染率、不愈合率和再手术率。次要结局包括骨折类型分析和负重时间。统计分析对分类变量使用卡方或费雪精确检验,对连续变量使用学生t检验。结果:194例患者中,141例符合纳入标准:MFTP患者68例(年龄47.1±15.9岁,72%女性),SFS患者73例(年龄51.0±17.6岁,64%女性)。在年龄(p = 0.168)、体重指数(p = 0.107)、性别(p = 0.393)、吸烟状况(p = 0.556)和是否患有糖尿病(p = 0.499)方面,组间无统计学差异。使用Herscovici分类的骨折模式分析显示,94%的病例采用MFTP治疗低横向骨折(B型),而采用SFS治疗的病例为6%(结论:MFTP治疗内踝踝关节骨折的结果和并发症发生率与SFS固定相当。这些发现支持MFTP作为内踝固定的可行选择,因为碎片形态可能妨碍安全的双螺钉置入。临床证据水平:3,治疗队列研究。
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
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 医学-运动科学
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
8.70%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma is devoted exclusively to the diagnosis and management of hard and soft tissue trauma, including injuries to bone, muscle, ligament, and tendons, as well as spinal cord injuries. Under the guidance of a distinguished international board of editors, the journal provides the most current information on diagnostic techniques, new and improved surgical instruments and procedures, surgical implants and prosthetic devices, bioplastics and biometals; and physical therapy and rehabilitation.
×
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
小红书