[Pilon fractures. Part 1: Diagnostics, treatment strategies and approaches].

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] 8. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2021 May;9(3):272-282. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2020.53240.2641. Open Pilon Fracture Postoperative Outcomes with Definitive Surgical Management Options: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Daniels NF(1), Lim JA(1), Thahir A(2), Krkovic M(2). Author information: (1)Faculty of Medicine, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK. (2)Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Cambridge University Hospital, Addenbrookes Major Trauma Centre, Cambridge, UK. BACKGROUND: Pilon fractures represent one of the most surgically challenging fractures in orthopaedics. Different techniques exist for their management, with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and External fixation (Ex-Fix) the most widely used. Whilst there is a plethora of data regarding these strategies for Pilon fractures as a whole, very limited data exists solely on the management of open Pilon fractures. This study aimed to elucidate how surgical management options can influence postoperative complications, and if this can influence future management protocols. METHODS: We conducted a search in PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL for postoperative complications and functional outcomes in open pilon fractures in those treated with Ex-Fix vs ORIF (PROSPERO-CRD42020184213). The postoperative complications measured included non-union, mal-union, delayed union, bone grafting, amputation, osteoarthritis, deep infection and superficial infection. Functional outcomes in the form of the AOFAS score was also measured where possible. We were able to carry out a meta-analysis for both deep infections and non-unions. RESULTS: The search yielded 309 results and a total of 18 studies consisting of 484 patients were included. All fractures included were open, and consisted of 64 Gustilo-Anderson Type I, 148 Type II, 103 Type IIIa, 90 Type IIIb and 9 Type IIIc. 60 Type III fractures could not be further separated and 12 were ungraded. Both ORIF and Ex-Fix were found to have statistically similar AOFAS scores (P=0.682). For all included studies, the Ex-Fix group had significantly higher rates of superficial infections (P=0.001), non-unions (P=0.001), osteoarthritis (P=0.001) and bone grafting (P=0.001). The meta-analysis found no significant difference in non-union (pooled OR=0.25, 95% CI: 0.03 to 2.24, P=0.44) or deep infection rates (pooled OR=1.35, 95% CI: 0.11 to 16.69, P=0.12) between the ORIF and Ex-fix groups. CONCLUSION: Based on our study, while Ex-Fix and ORIF have similar functional outcomes, Ex-Fix appears to have a significantly higher risk of postoperative complications which must be considered by surgeons when choosing surgical management options. Further research, ideally in a randomised control trial format, is required to definitively demonstrate ORIF superiority in the management of open pilon fractures. DOI: 10.22038/abjs.2020.53240.2641 PMCID: PMC8221448