Bastías GF, Sepúlveda S, Bruna S, Contreras M, Hube M, Cuchacovich N, Bergeret JP, Fuentes P. Comparison of complications and reoperations in AO/OTA 43.C3 pilon fractures treated with conventional ORIF versus minimally invasive hexapod ring fixation.
Injury 2023;
54 Suppl 6:110884. [PMID:
38143151 DOI:
10.1016/j.injury.2023.110884]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2023] [Revised: 06/04/2023] [Accepted: 06/04/2023] [Indexed: 12/26/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Controversy exists regarding the optimal management of AO/OTA 43. C3 pilon fractures. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is the gold standard treatment, but serious soft tissue and infectious complications have been previously reported. Minimally invasive strategies using hexapod ring fixation (HRF) with supplemental limited internal fixation have been used to reduce the incidence of complications. Previous studies have included heterogeneous types of pilon fractures, with non-comminuted injuries being more likely to be treated with ORIF and complex fractures receiving HRF treatment. To our knowledge, no studies have compared the complications and reoperation rates between ORIF and HRF exclusively for C3 fractures.
METHODS
Retrospective study comparing 53 patients treated for AO/OTA 43.C3 pilon fracture with ORIF or HRF in a trauma level I center with at least a two-year follow-up. Patients treated between January 2015 and January 2019 received ORIF and those treated between January 2019 and January 2021 received HRF. Complications were divided into two groups: minor (superficial infection and malalignment) and major (non-union, deep infection, and amputation). Reoperations, prevalence of ankle osteoarthritis, and requirement for ankle arthrodesis/total ankle replacement were registered.
RESULTS
We included 30 and 23 patients in the ORIF and HRF groups, respectively. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups, with 50% and 56,5% of the patients having complications in the ORIF and HRF groups, respectively (p:0,63). Minor complications were significantly more prevalent in the HRF group (p<0,001) whilst the ORIF group had a significantly higher rate of major complications (p<0,01). Superficial infections were highly prevalent in the HRF group (47,8%), as they were related to half-pin or K-wire infections. Deep infection was present only in the ORIF group, with 20% of the patients developing this major complication (p:0,03). Non-union rate, reoperations, ankle osteoarthritis, and the need for arthrodesis or ankle replacement showed no significant differences.
CONCLUSION
In AO/OTA 43.C3 fractures, HRF is safe and effective, achieving high union rates with a significantly lower rate of major complications compared to ORIF. According to our results, ORIF should be used cautiously for these types of fractures, considering the increased risk of deep infection.
Collapse