SURGICAL OUTCOMES IN INTRAMEDULLARY FIBULAR NAIL FIXATION COMPARED WITH PLATE FIXATION OF DISTAL FIBULAR FRACTURES

Abstract

IntroductionThe condition of the soft tissues surrounding an ankle fracture influences timing and treatment of injuries. Conventional treatment used an open approach to facilitate anatomical reduction and rigid internal fixation. Intramedullary devices for fibular fractures provide a safe alternative in patients in which the condition of the soft tissue envelope or the patient's co-morbidities may benefit from a less invasive approach. We compared outcomes for patients treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with those undergoing treatment with fibular nails (FN)Methods13 consecutive patients treated with fibular nails (FN) were compared with 13 age-matched patients that underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). All patients were followed to union. Study outcomes were time from admission to surgery, length of stay, wound failure, implant failure, revision surgery, OMAS and SF-36ResultsThere was no difference in age or sex distribution between groups. There was no difference in OMAS at 1 year (83 ± 9 in FN group; 80± 21 in ORIF group) and SF-36 (94 ± 11 and 90 ± 20). There were 2 implant failures in the ORIF group and none in the FN group. There was one wound failure in the ORIF group and none in the FN group. Patients treated with FN had a shorter time to surgery (1 day ± 24 hours vs 3 days ± 24 hours) and shorter length of stay (1 day ± 24 hours vs 4 days ± 96 hours)ConclusionFN is a safe method to treat patients with displaced distal fibular fractures that may have a poor soft tissue envelope and risk factors for wound healing. FN reduces the time to surgery and overall length of stay compared with similar patients treated with conventional ORIF.