Open reduction internal fixation versus external fixation with limited internal fixation for displaced comminuted closed pilon fractures: A randomised prospective study

摘要

BackgroundPilon fractures involve the dome of the distal tibial articular surface. The optimal treatment for high-energy pilon fractures remains controversial. Some authors advocate the use of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) to avoid articular incongruence. Others advocate the use of bridging external fixation with limited internal fixation (EFLIF) to reduce soft tissue complications. Literature reports of prospective studies comparing the radioclinical outcomes of ORIF and EFLIF in high-energy fractures are scarce. Retrospective studies have their limitations because of insufficient randomisation. The objective of this randomised prospective study is to compare the clinical, radiologic and functional outcomes of displaced and comminuted closed pilon fractures, Rüedi and Allg?wer type II and III, treated by either ORIF or EFLIF.Materials and methodsForty-two patients were selected for the study. Twenty-two patients were subjected to ORIF and 20 patients were subjected to EFLIF. We used the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score as a standard method of reporting clinical status of the ankle. Patients were followed-up clinically and radiologically for over 2 years after the surgical treatment.ResultsThe results of ORIF and EFLIF in treatment of high-energy pilon fractures are equally effective in terms of functional outcomes and complication rates on the short term.ConclusionSoft tissue integrity and fracture comminution seem to have a significant influence on outcomes of intervention. A prospective multicentre study with a larger sample size that controls for other associated variables and comorbidities is warranted.Level of evidenceLevel II.