Open Pilon Fracture Postoperative Outcomes with Definitive Surgical Management Options: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

External fixation Open pilon fracture Open reduction internal fixation

Journal

The archives of bone and joint surgery
ISSN: 2345-4644
Titre abrégé: Arch Bone Jt Surg
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101636743

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2021
Historique:
received: 04 05 2020
accepted: 15 11 2020
entrez: 9 7 2021
pubmed: 10 7 2021
medline: 10 7 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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 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. 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 ( 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.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND 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
METHODS 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 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 (
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34239954
doi: 10.22038/abjs.2020.53240.2641
pmc: PMC8221448
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

272-282

Références

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Jul;(292):101-7
pubmed: 8519096
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Mar;84(3):454-64
pubmed: 11886919
J Orthop Trauma. 2003 Jul;17(6):421-9
pubmed: 12843727
Injury. 2015 Nov;46(11):2253-7
pubmed: 26115581
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015 Jul-Aug;54(4):646-51
pubmed: 25128304
Acta Orthop Belg. 2011 Aug;77(4):432-40
pubmed: 21954749
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2019 Sep-Dec;27(3):2309499019864722
pubmed: 31366284
Injury. 2005 Dec;36(12):1480-7
pubmed: 16246339
Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr. 2015 Nov;10(3):137-47
pubmed: 26407690
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996 Nov;78(11):1646-57
pubmed: 8934478
Injury. 2018 Sep;49 Suppl 2:S60-S64
pubmed: 30219149
J Orthop Trauma. 1999 Feb;13(2):78-84
pubmed: 10052780
J Orthop Trauma. 2008 Aug;22(7):451-7
pubmed: 18670284
J Orthop Trauma. 2010 Dec;24(12):757-63
pubmed: 21076248
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2018 Dec;11(4):537-545
pubmed: 30343399
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 Sep 15;26(18):640-651
pubmed: 30134307
Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2013 Mar-Apr;57(2):117-22
pubmed: 23608211
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2018 Dec;11(4):546-557
pubmed: 30327933
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019 Jun 15;27(12):e577-e584
pubmed: 30394911
Int Orthop. 2019 Aug;43(8):1939-1950
pubmed: 31093715
Injury. 2013 Aug;44(8):1107-11
pubmed: 23566706
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015 Apr;25(3):569-75
pubmed: 25256799
Foot Ankle Int. 2006 Apr;27(4):256-65
pubmed: 16624215
Orthop Surg. 2011 Feb;3(1):45-51
pubmed: 22009980
BMJ. 2019 Aug 28;366:l4898
pubmed: 31462531
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34
pubmed: 19631507
J Orthop Trauma. 2007 Sep;21(8):530-7
pubmed: 17805019
Injury. 2019 Jul;50 Suppl 2:S24-S28
pubmed: 31171351
Int Orthop. 2003;27(6):343-7
pubmed: 12851785
Orthop Res Rev. 2019 Sep 24;11:149-157
pubmed: 31576179
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Feb;92(2):346-52
pubmed: 20124061
Iowa Orthop J. 2011;31:1-20
pubmed: 22096414
J Orthop. 2015 Feb 21;12(Suppl 1):S7-S13
pubmed: 26719630
EFORT Open Rev. 2017 Mar 13;1(10):354-361
pubmed: 28461913
Injury. 2015 Nov;46 Suppl 6:S96-9
pubmed: 26584733
J Orthop Trauma. 2012 Aug;26(8):488-98
pubmed: 22357091

Auteurs

Natasha Faye Daniels (NF)

Faculty of Medicine, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.

Jiang An Lim (JA)

Faculty of Medicine, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.

Azeem Thahir (A)

Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Cambridge University Hospital, Addenbrookes Major Trauma Centre, Cambridge, UK.

Matija Krkovic (M)

Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Cambridge University Hospital, Addenbrookes Major Trauma Centre, Cambridge, UK.

Classifications MeSH