Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Between Fibula Intramedullary Nail Fixation vs Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for the Surgical Management of Unstable Ankle Fractures

Abstract

Category: Ankle; Trauma Introduction/Purpose: The fundamental concept of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of unstable ankle fractures was anatomical reduction and firm fixation that allow early mobilization and rehabilitation. On the other hand, ORIF of ankle fractures is associated with complications including wound dehiscence, necrosis and infection, prominent hardware and failure. Closed reduction and intramedullary fixation (CRIF) using fibula nail was emerged as additional surgical option for unstable ankle fractures especially in elderly and medical high-risk patients. We hypothesized that fibula nailing for unstable ankle fractures would have similar functional outcomes to standard ORIF. The purpose of this study is to perform a prospective randomized study to compare clinical outcomes, bone union, and postoperative complications between ORIF and CRIF using fibula nail. Methods: A total of 59 patients (32 men, 27 women) with the mean age of 50.2 years were prospectively randomized to undergo standard ORIF or fibular nailing for unstable ankle fractures: those who underwent ORIF (31 patients 14 men, 17 women) and those who underwent CRIF using fibula nail (29 patients; 18 men and 11women). Exclusion criteria of fracture characteristics were open fracture and highly comminuted fibula fractures. Functional scoring including VAS, AOFAS and FAOS were evaluated at minimum postoperative 2 years follow up. In addition, union period, reduction status of fracture and ankle mortise at postoperative CT scan, complications including wound problem and posttraumatic arthritis were evaluated. Results: The VAS, AOFAS, and all FAOS subscales were not significantly different between two group at 2 years postoperatively (all, p>0.05). Significantly fewer infections and wound complication occurred in the fibula nail group. (p < 0.05; ORIF group (12.9%), fibula nail group (0%)). Postoperative at fracture site of fibula was high in fibula nail group (p < 0.05; ORIF group (0%), fibula nail group (13.7%)), but there were no significant differences in the status of mortise and the rate of posttraumatic arthritis (all, p>0.05). Conclusion: We concluded that the fibula nail allows acceptable reduction and secure fixation of unstable ankle fracture, with low soft tissue complication rate than ORIF. Considering the property closed reduction, the fibula nail would be an excellent treatment option for patients with unstable ankle fractures when indications is well selected