Journals / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2016 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 6

Importance of fixation of posterior malleolus fracture in trimalleolar fractures: A retrospective study

Pages
553–558
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Fixation of even small PM fragments can facilitate rehabilitation by creating more stable construction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate treatment effect and importance of posterior malleolus (PM) fixation in surgically treated trimalleolar fractures.METHODS: A total of 57 cases of ankle joint fracture involving PM and treated with open reduction and internal fixation technique between 2004 and 2011 were evaluated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:PM fixation was performed with cannulated screws in 46 cases, and in 11 cases, PM plate was used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Fixation of even small PM fragments can facilitate rehabilitation by creating more stable construction.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2004 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate treatment effect and importance of posterior malleolus (PM) fixation in surgically treated trimalleolar fractures.METHODS: A total of 57 cases of ankle joint fracture involving PM and treated with open reduction and internal fixation technique between 2004 and 2011 were evaluated. PM fixation was performed with cannulated screws in 46 cases, and in 11 cases, PM plate was used. All patients were assessed using American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) foot and ankle questionnaire, and Visual Analog Score (VAS) pain scale. Ankle joint mobility was also compared with unaffected side.RESULTS: Mean follow-up period was 44.6 months (range: 24-108 months). There were 36 female patients and 21 male patients between 23 and 85 years of age (mean: 55.9 years). Average time to surgery was 1.1 day (range: 1-3 days). According to AOFAS assessment, result was excellent in 21 patients and good in 26 patients. AAOS score was 92.4 (range: 32-100). Mean VAS score when resting was 1.1, and mean score was 1.3 when walking (range: 0-10). When compared with uninjured side, there was no significant difference in plantar flexion of ankle (p=0.325) but there was significant difference in dorsiflexion of ankle joint (p<0.001).CONCLUSION: Anatomical reduction and rigid internal fixation of PM provide satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes even in elderly patients where bone quality may make adequate fixation difficult. Fixation of even small PM fragments can facilitate rehabilitation by creating more stable construction.

🔖

Cite This Article

KARACA, S., ENERCAN, M., ÖZDEMİR, G., KAHRAMAN, S., ÇOBANOĞLU, M., KÜÇÜKKAYA, M. (2016). Importance of fixation of posterior malleolus fracture in trimalleolar fractures: A retrospective study. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 6, 553–558. https://ajindex.com/articles/323752

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Daly PJ, Fitzgerald RH Jr, Melton LJ, Ilstrup DM. Epidemiology of ankle fractures in Rochester, Minnesota. Acta Orthop Scand 1987;58:539-44
  2. Jaskulka RA, Ittner G, Schedl R. Fractures of the posterior tibial margin: their role in the prognosis of malleolar fractures. J Trauma 1989;29:1565-70
  3. Court-Brown CM, McBirnie J, Wilson G. Adult ankle fractures--an increasing problem? Acta Orthop Scand 1998;69:43-7
  4. Neumaier Probst E, Maas R, Meenen NM. Isolated fracture of the posterolateral tibial lip (Volkmann's triangle). Acta Radiol 1997;38:359-62
  5. Gardner MJ, Brodsky A, Briggs SM, Nielson JH, Lorich DG. Fixation of posterior malleolar fractures provides greater syndesmotic stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;447:165-71. 6. van den Bekerom MP, Haverkamp D, Kloen P. Biomechanical and clinical evaluation of posterior malleolar fractures. A systematic review of the literature. J Trauma 2009;66:279-84
  6. Özkan Y, Öztürk A, Özdemir R, Atıcı T, Özbölük S. The results of surgical management of ankle fractures. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2005;11:329-35
  7. Raasch WG, Larkin JJ, Draganich LF. Assessment of the posterior malleolus as a restraint to posterior subluxation of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1992;74:1201-6
  8. Scheidt KB, Stiehl JB, Skrade DA, Barnhardt T. Posterior malleolar ankle fractures: an in vitro biomechanical analysis of stability in the loaded and unloaded states. J Orthop Trauma 1992;6:96-101
  9. Macko VW, Matthews LS, Zwirkoski P, Goldstein SA. The joint-contact area of the ankle. The contribution of the posterior malleolus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:347-51
  10. Lindsjö U. Operative treatment of ankle fracture-dislocations. A follow-up study of 306/321 consecutive cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985;199:28-38. 12. de Souza LJ, Gustilo RB, Meyer TJ. Results of operative treatment of displaced external rotation-abduction fractures of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985;67:1066-74
  11. Erdem MN, Erken HY, Burc H, Saka G, Korkmaz MF, Aydogan M. Comparison of lag screw versus buttress plate fixation of posterior malleolar fractures. Foot Ankle Int 2014;35:1022-30
  12. Domsic RT, Saltzman CL. Ankle osteoarthritis scale. Foot Ankle Int 1998;19:466-71
  13. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int 1994;15(7):349-53
  14. Johanson NA, Liang MH, Daltroy L, Rudicel S, Richmond J. American Academy of Orthopaed