RANDOMIZED COMPARATIVE STUDY OF DEFINITIVE EXTERNAL FIXATION VERSUS ORIF IN PILON FRACTURES: AN EARLY CLINICAL OUTCOME REPORT

Repairing Pilon fractures remains challenging. ORIF allows direct anatomical reduction, but at the expense of soft tissues dissection which are associated with recovery. On the other hand, External Fixation allows indirect reduction and causes less soft tissue damage. However, a few studies conclude that External Fixation is associated with high rates of malunion.The objectives were to evaluate and compare: primary outcome measure: ankle hindfoot function (AOFAS at 9 months) and secondary outcome measures: quality of reduction, bone union, arthritic changes, other potential complications and ultimately the optimum management for pilon fractures.A prospective randomized comparative clinical study. 40 Patients were included in the study with comminuted closed Pilon fracture. Patients were randomized by closed envelope technique into two groups: Group (1) Included 20 patients managed by external fixation with limited internal fixation. Group (2) Included 20 patients managed by open reduction and internal fixation. Skeletally immature, type 43A AO/OTA, Open fractures, compartment syndrome, Pathological fractures were excluded.There was no significant difference between External fixation and ORIF as methods of fixation for Pilon fracture in the functional activity of the patient after 9 months as evidenced by AOFAS score (P=0.547) and the development of complications (P=0.227). However, there was statistically significant difference (P<0.001) regarding the time to weight bearing between both groups, and statistically significant difference (P=0.042) regarding time to union.The best surgical modality to treat Pilon fractures is still debatable. While external fixation is used by many to avoid major complications, it has been associated with high rates of malunion, and osteoarthritis.