Advertisement

Negative prognostic factors in surgical treatment for trimalleolar fractures

  • Gianluca TestaEmail author
  • Marco Ganci
  • Mirko Amico
  • Giacomo Papotto
  • Serena Maria Chiara Giardina
  • Giuseppe Sessa
  • Vito Pavone
Original Article • ANKLE - FRACTURES
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Trimalleolar fractures are a common injury of the ankle that require surgical treatment to obtain an anatomic reduction of both malleoli and stabilization of the syndesmosis. This study aims to report the outcomes of surgical treatment for trimalleolar fractures, identifying the risk factors determining a worse result.

Materials and methods

Between January 2013 and December 2016, 48 patients with trimalleolar fracture treated with open reduction and internal fixation were retrospectively analyzed. The mean age was 44.69 years, and average body mass index (BMI) was 29.04. According to the Danis–Weber classification, 30 (62.5%) fractures were type B and 18 (37.5%) were type C. Clinical and radiographic evaluations at 3, 6, and 12 months were assessed. The functional results of Visual Analogue Staircases and Olerud–Molander (O&M) ankle score were reported.

Results

No significant difference was found among the size of the PM in patients with and without ankle dislocation (p = 0.364). Therefore, there is no correlation between the size of the posterior fragment and the ankle dislocation and the size of the posterior malleolus and syndesmosis stability (p = 0.328). Age over 61 years, BMI > 40, ASA > 1, type C fracture, and fracture dislocation were considered as negative prognostic fractures.

Conclusions

Surgical treatment for trimalleolar fractures needs accurate preoperative planning. Age over 61 years, BMI > 40, ASA > 1, type C fracture, and fracture dislocation were considered as negative prognostic fractures.

Keywords

Trimalleolar fractures Posterior malleolus Outcome Open reduction Internal fixation 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the authors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Tenenbaum S, Shazar N, Bruck N, Bariteau J (2017) Posterior malleolus fractures. Orthop Clin N Am 48(1):81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kukkonen J, Heikkilä JT, Kyyrönen T, Mattila K, Gullichsen E (2006) Posterior malleolar fracture is often associated with spiral tibial diaphyseal fracture: a retrospective study. J Trauma 60(5):1058–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Koval KJ, Lurie J, Zhou W et al (2005) Ankle fractures in the elderly: what you get depends on where you live and who you see. J Orthop Trauma 19(9):635–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duan X, Kadakia AR (2017) Operative treatment of posterior malleolar fractures. Open Orthop J 11:732–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bartoníček J, Rammelt S, Tuček M, Naňka O (2015) Posterior malleolar fractures of the ankle. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 41(6):587–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tejwani NC, Pahk B, Egol KA (2010) Effect of posterior malleolus fracture on outcome after unstable ankle fracture. J Trauma 69(3):666–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mandi DM (2012) Ankle fractures. Clin Podiatr Med Surg 29(2):155–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yablon IG, Leach RE (1989) Reconstruction of malunited fractures of the lateral malleolus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71(4):521–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bali N, Aktselis I, Ramasamy A, Mitchell S, Fenton P (2017) An evolution in the management of fractures of the ankle: safety and efficacy of posteromedial approach for Haraguchi type 2 posterior malleolar fractures. Bone Joint J 99-B(11):1496–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nelson MC, Jensen NK (1940) The treatment of trimalleolar fractures of the ankle. Surg Gynecol Obstet 71:509–514Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jindal N, Gupta P (2013) Comment on Xu et al.: a retrospective study of posterior malleolus fractures. Int Orthop 37(5):993–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fitz-Henry J (2011) The ASA classification and peri-operative risk. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93(3):185–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Danis R (1949) Les fractures malleolaires. In: Danis R (ed) Theorie et Pratique de l’Osteosynthese. Masson, Paris, pp 133–165Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fonseca LLD, Nunes IG, Nogueira RR, Martins GEV, Mesencio AC, Kobata SI (2017) Reproducibility of the Lauge-Hansen, Danis–Weber, and AO classifications for ankle fractures. Rev Bras Ortop 53(1):101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McBryde A, Chiasson B, Wilhelm A, Donovan F, Ray T, Bacilla P (1997) Syndesmotic screw placement: a biomechanical analysis. Foot Ankle Int 18(5):262–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Vries JS, Wijgman AJ, Sierevelt IN, Schaap GR (2005) Long-term results of ankle fractures with a posterior malleolar fragment. J Foot Ankle Surg 44(3):211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaskulka RA, Ittner G, Schedl R (1989) Fractures of the posterior tibial margin: their role in the prognosis of malleolar fractures. J Trauma 29(11):1565–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hunt KJ, Goeb Y, Behn AW, Criswell B, Chou L (2015) Ankle joint contact loads and displacement with progressive syndesmotic injury. Foot Ankle Int 36(9):1095–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vrahas M, Fu F, Veenis B (1994) Intraarticular contact stresses with simulated ankle malunions. J Orthop Trauma 8(2):159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Papachristou G, Efstathopoulos N, Levidiotis C, Chronopoulos E (2003) Early weight bearing after posterior malleolar fractures: an experimental and prospective clinical study. J Foot Ankle Surg 42(2):99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Solan MC, Sakellariou A (2017) Posterior malleolus fractures: worth fixing. Bone Joint J 99-B(11):1413–1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hartford JM, Gorczyca JT, McNamara JL, Mayor MB (1995) Tibiotalar contact area. Contribution of posterior malleolus and deltoid ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res 320:182–187Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cho BK, Choi SM, Shin YD (2018) Prognostic factors for intermediate-term clinical outcomes following Bosworth fractures of the ankle joint. Foot Ankle Surg (Epub ahead of print)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shao J, Zhang H, Yin B et al (2018) Risk factors for surgical site infection following operative treatment of ankle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 56:124–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heim UF (1989) Trimalleolar fractures: late results after fixation of the posterior fragment. Orthopedics 12(8):1053–1059Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shah NH, Sundaram RO, Velusamy A, Braithwaite IJ (2007) Five-year functional outcome analysis of ankle fracture fixation. Injury 38(11):1308–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mingo-Robinet J, López-Durán L, Galeote JE, Martinez-Cervell C (2011) Ankle fractures with posterior malleolar fragment: management and results. J Foot Ankle Surg 50(2):141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General Surgery and Medical Surgical Specialties, Section of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, A.O.U. Policlinico – Vittorio EmanueleUniversity of CataniaCataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations