Primary Open Reduction Internal Fixation Research Articles

Republication of "Primary Ankle Arthrodesis vs ORIF for Severely Comminuted Pilon Fractures: A Comparative Retrospective Study".

The treatment for highly comminuted pilon fractures remains controversial. The goal of this retrospective cohort study was to compare functional outcomes of primary arthrodesis of the tibiotalar joint (fusion) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). Patients who underwent primary ORIF or fusion for pilon fractures at our institution since 2000 were identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code. Inclusion criteria for the ORIF cohort were patients with an AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association type C3 pilon fracture. Additional inclusion criteria for the fusion cohort were patients whose fractures were deemed non-reconstructable by the treating surgeon. Outcome assessment was determined by the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and Short Form 36-item health survey (SF-36), time to radiographic union or fusion, and wound-healing complications at a minimum of 2 years after their surgery. Nineteen ORIF and 16 fusion patients completed the study's outcome assessments. A higher rate of nonunion was observed in patients treated by primary ORIF than primary fusion (5/19 vs 1/16). Posttraumatic arthritis was observed in 11 of 19 primary ORIF patients. Primary fusion patients exhibited increased symptoms, pain, and physical role limits but were equivalent to primary ORIF patients on all other functional metrics examined. Primary ankle arthrodesis achieves a lower rate of nonunion and comparable functional outcomes to ORIF in patients with severely comminuted pilon fractures. The higher rate of nonunion observed in the primary ORIF group suggests that primary fusion should be considered an effective procedure for severe injuries to decrease the need for further operative intervention. Therapeutic Level III, retrospective cohort.

Ballistic Tibial Plafond Fractures Compared with Blunt Open Tibial Pilon Fractures: A Control-Matched Study

INTRODUCTION: It is well documented that blunt, open tibial plafond fractures are severe injuries with high complication rates; however, there is a paucity of literature on ballistic intraarticular tibial plafond fractures. The purpose of this study is to determine the differences in outcomes between ballistic tibial plafond fractures and open pilon fractures. METHODS: We report on a consecutive series of patients over a 10-year period that presented to a single level I trauma center with an OTA 43C ballistic tibial plafond fracture. A control group consisting of patients with open pilon fractures matched for OTA classification, Gustilo-Anderson classification, and fixation method was used for comparison. Pearson’s chi-square and Fischer’s exact tests were utilized to determine differences between groups. RESULTS: A total of 27 ballistic tibial plafond fracture patients treated surgically were identified. The control matched group consisted of 21 patients. Fixation was achieved using the following methods: primary open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) (n = 8), primary external fixation (n = 21), staged external fixation and delayed ORIF (n = 18), and staged external fixation and delayed intramedullary nail (n = 1). There was no difference in rates of deep infection (19% vs 38%, p = 0.13) and superficial infection (41% vs 33%, p = 0.60) between the ballistic and control group. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that ballistic intraarticular tibial plafond fractures are severe injuries that have similar outcomes to blunt, open pilon fractures that occur with high-energy axial loading. Although ballistic tibial plafond fractures are rare, our data reveal similarly high complication rates to blunt, open pilon fractures.

Risk Factors for Aseptic Revision of Surgically-Treated Ankle Fractures

Category:Trauma; AnkleIntroduction/Purpose:Early revision rates within 12 months after ankle fracture open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) are fairly low, however remain relevant given the sheer volume of ankle fractures which occur each year. Understanding these rates is complex because reoperation due to technical or mechanical complications - such as malunion, inadequate reduction or fixation failure - are typically reported alongside returns to the operating room for soft-tissue related problems like wound dehiscence or infection. There is limited data identifying risk factors specifically for revision of ankle fracture fixation in the absence of soft-tissue complications. Understanding variables which predispose to aseptic technical and mechanical failure without this confounder may provide insight and improve patient care.Methods:The purpose was to identify risk factors for aseptic revision of ankle fracture within ORIF 1 year of primary operation. A retrospective cohort study was performed at two large academic medical centers. Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) data available from 2002-2019 was used to identify patients who underwent aseptic revision of ankle fracture ORIF within 12mo of their primary ORIF. Patients were excluded if <18yo at primary surgery, or if indications for return to the operating room included surgical management of a dehisced wound or deep infection. A control group was selected by identifying sequential patients who underwent ankle fracture ORIF which did not require revision within 12mo. Primary and revision surgeon characteristics, patient demographics, comorbidities, fracture characteristics, surgical techniques and post-operative events were recorded and compared in univariate analysis. Variables which achieved significance in univariate comparisons were included as candidates for multivariable analysis.Results:33 patients were identified for the Revision group. 100 patients were identified for the Control group (Power = 80% for detecting moderate differences). Groups did not differ in age or gender. Final multivariable logistic regression modeling, adjusting for all other variables within the multivariable analysis, demonstrated the following factors to be independently associated with an increased risk of revision surgery: Documented falls in the early post-operative period (aOR: 298; 95% CI: 15.4, 5759; P<0.001), Movement-altering disorders (aOR=81.7; 95% CI: 4.12, 1620; P=0.004), a non-anatomic mortise (MCS > SCS) on immediate post- operative imaging (aOR=28.4; 95% CI: 5.53, 267; P<0.001), more severe initial fracture displacement (ARCS Type C) (aOR vs Type A =25.8; 95% CI: 2.81, 237; P=0.004), Substance abuse (aOR=15.7; 95% CI: 2.66, 92.8; P=0.002), and polytrauma (aOR=12.3; 95% CI: 2.02, 74.8; P=0.006).Conclusion:Six factors were found to be predictive of the need for aseptic revision: Documented falls in the early post- operative period (aOR: 298), movement-altering disorders (aOR=81.7), a non-anatomic mortise (MCS > SCS) on immediate post- operative imaging (aOR=28.4), more severe initial fracture displacement (ARCS Type C) (aOR=25.8), substance abuse (aOR=15.7) and polytrauma (aOR=12.3). Identifying these factors may allow surgeons to better counsel their patients and discuss risk during the informed consent process. These may also serve as future targets for intervention aimed at improving patient safety and outcomes follow ankle fracture ORIF.

Immediate Weight-Bearing and Range of Motion After Internal Fixation of Selected Malleolar Fractures: A Retrospective Controlled Study.

We studied the safety of immediate weight-bearing as tolerated (IWBAT) and immediate range of motion (IROM) after open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of selected malleolar ankle fractures (defined as involving bony or ligamentous disruption of 2 or more of the malleoli or syndesmosis without articular comminution) and attempted to identify risk factors for complications. Retrospective case-control study. Level 1 Urban Trauma Center and multiple community hospitals, orthopedic specialty hospitals, and outpatient surgicenters within one metropolitan area. Of 268 patients at our level 1 trauma center who underwent primary ORIF of a selected malleolar fracture from 2013 to 2018, we identified 133 (49.6%) who were selected for IWBAT and IROM. We used propensity score matching to identify 172 controls who were non-weight-bearing (NWB) and no range of motion for 6 weeks postoperatively. The groups did not differ significantly in age, body mass index, Charleston Comorbidity Index, smoking status, diabetes status, malleoli involved, percentages undergoing medial malleolus (60.9% IWBAT vs. 51.7% NWB), posterior malleolus (24.1% IWBAT, 26.7% NWB), or syndesmosis fixation (41.4% IWBAT, 42.4% NWB, P = 0.85). IWBAT and IROM after ankle ORIF versus NWB for 6 weeks. Postoperative complications, including delayed wound healing, superficial or deep infection, and loss of reduction. There was no significant difference in total complications (P = 0.41), nonoperative complications (P = 0.53), or operative complications, including a loss of reduction (P = 0.89). We did not identify any factors associated with an increased complication risk, including posterior malleolus or syndesmosis fixation, diabetes, age, or preinjury-assisted ambulation. We failed to demonstrate a difference in complications in general and loss of reduction in particular when allowing immediate weight-bearing/ROM in selected cases of operatively treated malleolar fractures, suggesting this may be safe. Future prospective randomized studies are necessary to determine if immediate weight-bearing/ROM is safe and whether it offers any benefits to patients with operatively treated malleolar fractures. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Immediate Weight Bearing and Range of Motion After Internal Fixation of Unstable Ankle Fractures: A Retrospective Controlled Study

Category:Ankle; TraumaIntroduction/Purpose:Ankle fractures are the third most common adult fractures. Further, they are the second most common fracture type to require inpatient admission, behind only hip fractures, despite occurring in a population on average nearly 30 years younger. There is evidence that early or immediate weight bearing and range of motion may be safe following ankle fracture fixation, but existing studies are small and largely exclude patients with syndesmotic or posterior malleolar fixation. We therefore studied the safety of immediate weight bearing as tolerated (IWBAT) and immediate range of motion (IROM) following open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of unstable ankle fractures in a diverse cohort and attempted to identify risk factors for complications.Methods:We performed a retrospective case-control study. Out of 268 patients who underwent primary ORIF of an unstable ankle fracture from 2013-18, we identified 133 (49.6%) who were IWBAT and IROM. The treating surgeon excluded patients from IWBAT if they had an ipsilateral leg injury requiring non-weight bearing, a large displaced posterior malleolus fragment, or Maisonneuve injury with fracture of the proximal fibula. We used propensity-score matching to identify 172 controls who were non-weight bearing (NWB) and no range of motion for 6 weeks post-op. We reviewed medical records and radiographs for demographic, injury and treatment characteristics. Our primary outcome was complications. We compared demographics, injury characteristics, treatment episode, and complications between the IWBAT and NWB groups and performed within group analysis to identify risk factors for complications. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant.Results:The groups did not differ significantly in age, BMI, Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI), smoking status, diabetes status, malleoli involved, percentages undergoing medial malleolus (60.9% IWBAT vs. 51.7% NWB, p=0.11), posterior malleolus (24.1% IWBAT, 26.7% NWB, p=0.59), or syndesmosis fixation (41.4% IWBAT, 42.4% NWB, p=0.85). There was no significant difference in total complications (9.8% IWBAT vs. 12.8% NWB, p=0.41), nonoperative complications (6.8% IWBAT vs. 8.7% NWB, p=0.53), or operative complications (3.8% IWBAT vs. 4.1% NWB, p=0.89). We did not identify any factors associated with increased complication risk, including posterior malleolus or syndesmosis fixation, diabetes, age, CCI or pre-injury assisted ambulation.Conclusion:IWBAT and IROM may be safe following ankle fracture ORIF in a broader patient population than previously believed. We did not identify specific risk factors for post-operative complications. Further study on patient selection may allow for more extensive use of this protocol to reduce the morbidity associated with unstable ankle fractures.

Feasibility and Reliability of Open Reduction Internal Fixation in Delayed Distal Radius Fracture Management

Purpose Current guidelines recommend that open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) for distal radius fractures (DRFs) be performed within 4 weeks of injury. Delayed DRF management (4 weeks or more) is traditionally subject to corrective osteotomy. We report a 5-year single-surgeon series of delayed DRFs that were treated by ORIF rather than osteotomy. Methods We performed a retrospective review on all patients admitted to a single tertiary care center with a DRF requiring ORIF (2007–2012). Institutional review board approval was obtained. Patients were divided into an early group (EG) (surgery less than 4 weeks after injury) and delayed group (DG) (surgery after 4 or more weeks). Data collected included demographics, injury pattern, intraoperative parameters, and pre- and postoperative x-ray findings. Subjective and objective functional data were determined using a Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire score and Mayo Wrist Score. Results A total of 171 patients (EG = 54; DG = 117) underwent ORIF from 2007 to 2012 and met inclusion criteria. Both groups had similar age, gender, and racial demographics. Of these, 117 patients in the delayed group underwent ORIFs at 40 ± 13.9 days (range, 28–146 days) after injury. Preoperative fracture patterns were radiographically equivalent. A dorsal approach was required more frequently in the EG (7.4%) compared with DG (1.1%). The Orbay maneuver was performed at a significantly higher rate in the DG (55.8%) compared with the EG (38.8%). Blood loss, tourniquet times, intraoperative complications, radiographic parameters, articular incongruency rates, and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score, and Mayo Wrist Score were not statistically significant between groups. Conclusions No significant differences were found in intraoperative technique, operative time, postoperative radiographs, and subjective outcome measures in patients treated with early versus late ORIF. Despite the current belief that primary ORIF in delayed DRF is technically impossible and warrants an osteotomy, our series indicates that ORIF is indeed a viable option in DRFs as late as 5 months after injury. Type of study/level of evidence Therapeutic IV

Primary Ankle Arthrodesis vs ORIF for Severely Comminuted Pilon Fractures

Background:The treatment for highly comminuted pilon fractures remains controversial. The goal of this retrospective cohort study was to compare functional outcomes of primary arthrodesis of the tibiotalar joint (fusion) and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF).Methods:Patients who underwent primary ORIF or fusion for pilon fractures at our institution since 2000 were identified by Current Procedural Terminology ( CPT) code. Inclusion criteria for the ORIF cohort were patients with an AO/Orthopaedic Trauma Association type C3 pilon fracture. Additional inclusion criteria for the fusion cohort were patients whose fractures were deemed non-reconstructable by the treating surgeon. Outcome assessment was determined by the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and Short Form 36-item health survey (SF-36), time to radiographic union or fusion, and wound-healing complications at a minimum of 2 years after their surgery.Results:Nineteen ORIF and 16 fusion patients completed the study’s outcome assessments. A higher rate of nonunion was observed in patients treated by primary ORIF than primary fusion (5/19 vs 1/16). Posttraumatic arthritis was observed in 11 of 19 primary ORIF patients. Primary fusion patients exhibited increased symptoms, pain, and physical role limits but were equivalent to primary ORIF patients on all other functional metrics examined.Conclusions:Primary ankle arthrodesis achieves a lower rate of nonunion and comparable functional outcomes to ORIF in patients with severely comminuted pilon fractures. The higher rate of nonunion observed in the primary ORIF group suggests that primary fusion should be considered an effective procedure for severe injuries to decrease the need for further operative intervention.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level III, retrospective cohort.

Cost Comparison and Complication Rate of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Open Reduction Internal Fixation versus Primary Arthrodesis

Category: Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Controversy exists regarding optimal primary management of Lisfranc injuries. Whether open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis is superior remains unknown. Our retrospective study uses a private payer database to compare cost, complication rate, and hardware removal rate in Lisfranc injuries treated with primary open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis. Methods: Utilizing data mining software created by a private organization, a national insurance database of approximately 23.5 million orthopedic patients was retrospectively queried for subjects who were diagnosed with a Lisfranc injury from 2007-2016 based on international classification of diseases (ICD) codes for tarsometatarsal (TMT) dislocation (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO). Patients with TMT dislocations then progressed on to either non-operative treatment, open reduction internal fixation, or primary arthrodesis. Treatment costs based on diagnosis codes were followed after initial diagnosis and t-tests were used to determine statistical significance. Subgroups were created based on having at least one complication ICD or current procedural terminology (CPT) code after the beginning of treatment, which included: hemorrhage, infection, nonunion, malunion, thromboembolism, wound and hardware complications, or amputation. Additionally, patients undergoing implant removal were identified by CPT code for removal of hardware performed after the index procedure. Complication and hardware removal rates were compared with chi-square test. Results: 2205 subjects with a diagnosis of Lisfranc injury were identified in the database. 1248 patients underwent non-operative management, 670 underwent open reduction internal fixation, and 212 underwent primary arthrodesis. The average cost of care associated with primary arthrodesis was greater ($5,005.82) than for open reduction internal fixation ($3,961.97, P=0.045). The overall complication rate was 23.1% (155/670) for open reduction internal fixation and 30.2% (64/212) for primary arthrodesis (P=0.04). Rates of hardware removal independent of complications were 43.6% (292/670) for open reduction internal fixation and 18.4% (39/212) for arthrodesis (P&lt;0.001). Furthermore, 2.5% (17/670) patients in the open reduction internal fixation group progressed to arthrodesis at a mean of 308 days, average cost of care associated with this group of patients was $9,505.12. Conclusion: Primary arthrodesis for the management of acute Lisfranc injuries is both significantly more expensive and has a higher complication rate than open reduction internal fixation. Open reduction internal fixation demonstrated a low rate of progression to arthrodesis, although there was a high rate of hardware removal, which may represent a planned second procedure in the management of a substantial number of patients treated with open reduction internal fixation.

Cost Comparison and Complication Rate of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with Open Reduction Internal Fixation versus Primary Arthrodesis

Objectives:Controversy exists regarding optimal primary management of Lisfranc injuries. Whether open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis is superior remains unknown. Our retrospective study uses a private payer database to compare cost, complication rate, and hardware removal rate in Lisfranc injuries treated with primary open reduction internal fixation or primary arthrodesis.Methods:Utilizing data mining software created by a private organization, a national insurance database of approximately 23.5 million orthopedic patients was retrospectively queried for subjects who were diagnosed with a Lisfranc injury from 2007-2016 based on international classification of diseases (ICD) codes for tarsometatarsal (TMT) dislocation (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO). Patients with TMT dislocations then progressed on to either non-operative treatment, open reduction internal fixation, or primary arthrodesis. Associated treatment costs based on diagnosis codes were followed after initial diagnosis and t-tests were used to determine statistical significance. Subgroups were then created based on having at least one complication ICD or current procedural terminology (CPT) code after the beginning of treatment, which included: hemorrhage, infection, nonunion, malunion, thromboembolism, wound and hardware complications, or amputation. Additionally, patients undergoing implant removal were identified by CPT code for removal of hardware performed after the index procedure. Complication and hardware removal rates were compared with chi-square test.Results:2205 subjects with a diagnosis of Lisfranc injury were identified in the database. 1248 patients underwent non-operative management, 670 underwent open reduction internal fixation, and 212 underwent primary arthrodesis. The average cost of care associated with primary arthrodesis was greater ($5,005.82) than for open reduction internal fixation ($3,961.97, P=0.045). The overall complication rate was 23.1% (155/670) for open reduction internal fixation and 30.2% (64/212) for primary arthrodesis (P=0.04). Rates of hardware removal independent of complications were 43.6% (292/670) for open reduction internal fixation and 18.4% (39/212) for arthrodesis (P<0.001). Furthermore, 2.5% (17/670) patients in the open reduction internal fixation group progressed to arthrodesis at a mean of 308 days, average cost of care associated with this group of patients was $9,505.12.Conclusion:Primary arthrodesis for the management of acute Lisfranc injuries is both significantly more expensive and has a higher complication rate than open reduction internal fixation. Open reduction internal fixation demonstrated a low rate of progression to arthrodesis, although there was a high rate of hardware removal, which may represent a planned second procedure in the management of a substantial number of patients treated with open reduction internal fixation.

The Use of Mesh Plates for Difficult Fractures of the Patella.

Patella fractures present some of the more complicated fracture patterns in orthopaedic trauma care. This is partially due to the small size of the fragments but also the articular nature of each fragment. Fixation methods such as cerclage wiring, excision of smaller fragments, and screw fixation of larger fragments all have their own challenges. Our study examined our Level I trauma center's experience with variable angle locked 2.7 mm titanium plates for treatment of comminuted patella fractures or treatment of patellar nonunion. After Institutional Review Board approval, we used billing records to identify 105 patients who had undergone operative management of a displaced patella fracture between January 2011 and December 2015. We reviewed the radiographs of these patients to identify which patients underwent treatment with a mesh plate. We found 16 patients (6 males and 10 females) who had undergone fixation with a mesh plate; mean age was 47 years. Nine patients underwent primary open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and seven underwent mesh plate fixation for failed ORIF of a patella fracture. The mean visual analog pain score was 2.75 (range, 0-9). The mean range of motion was 1 degree of extension (range, 0-10 degrees) to 110 degrees of flexion (range, 45-135 degrees). All fractures healed. Five patients required hardware removal for pain. This review illustrates the effectiveness of the locking mesh plate in two challenging clinical scenarios: that of patellar nonunion and comminuted fractures that preclude standard fixation methods. Although multiple options exist for patellar fracture fixation, the titanium mesh locking plate can be an effective option for retaining the patella in the setting of comminution. Further comparative studies should be undertaken to determine which method of treatment may be superior in the treatment of these fractures.

Type C tibial pilon fractures: short- and long-term outcome following operative intervention.

The aim of this study was to report the outcome following primary fixation or a staged protocol for type C fractures of the tibial plafond. We studied all patients who sustained a complex intra-articular fracture (AO type C) of the distal tibia over an 11-year period. The primary short-term outcome was infection. The primary long-term outcome was the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). There were 102 type C pilon fractures in 99 patients, whose mean age was 42 years (16to86) and 77 were male. Primary open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) was performed in 73patients (71.6%), whilst 20 (19.6%) underwent primary external fixation with delayed ORIF. There were 18 wound infections (17.6%). A total of nine (8.8%) were deep and nine were superficial. Infection was associated with comorbidities (p = 0.008), open fractures (p=0.008) and primary external fixation with delayed ORIF (p = 0.023). At a mean of six years (0.3 to 13; n = 53) after the injury, the mean FAOS was 76.2 (0 to 100) and 72% of patients were satisfied. This is currently the largest series reporting the outcome following fixation of complex AO type C tibial pilon fractures. Despite the severity of these injuries, we have demonstrated that a satisfactory outcome can be achieved in the appropriate patients using primary ORIF. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1106-11.

Distal tibial pilon fractures (AO/OTA type B, and C) treated with the external skeletal and minimal internal fixation method

Distal tibial pilon fractures include extra-articular fractures of the tibial metaphysis and the more severe intra-articular tibial pilon fractures. There is no universal method for treating distal tibial pilon fractures. These fractures are treated by means of open reduction, internal fixation (ORIF) and external skeletal fixation. The high rate of soft-tissue complications associated with primary ORIF of pilon fractures led to the use of external skeletal fixation, with limited internal fixation as an alternative technique for definitive management. The aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of distal tibial pilon fratures treatment using the external skeletal and minimal internal fixation method. We presented a series of 31 operated patients with tibial pilon fractures. The patients were operated on using the method of external skeletal fixation with a minimal internal fixation. According to the AO/OTA classification, 17 patients had type B fracture and 14 patients type C fractures. The rigid external skeletal fixation was transformed into a dynamic external skeletal fixation 6 weeks post-surgery. This retrospective study involved 31 patients with tibial pilon fractures, average age 41.81 (from 21 to 60) years. The average follow-up was 21.86 (from 12 to 48) months. The percentage of union was 90.32%, nonunion 3.22% and malunion 6.45%. The mean to fracture union was 14 (range 12-20) weeks. There were 4 (12.19%) infections around the pins of the external skeletal fixator and one (3.22%) deep infections. The ankle joint arthrosis as a late complication appeared in 4 (12.90%) patients. All arthroses appeared in patients who had type C fractures. The final functional results based on the AOFAS score were excellent in 51.61%, good in 32.25%, average in 12.90% and bad in 3.22% of the patients. External skeletal fixation and minimal internal fixation of distal tibial pilon fractures is a good method for treating all types of inta-articular pilon fractures. In fractures types B and C dynamic external skeletal fixation allows early mobility in the ankle joint.

Operative Versus Nonoperative Management of Pipkin Type-II Fractures Associated with Posterior Hip Dislocation

Little has been written on randomized, controlled studies of operative versus nonoperative management of Pipkin type-II fractures associated with posterior dislocation of the hip. It is difficult to validate the optimal management of these fractures. The goals of this study were to (1) evaluate the results of conservative and surgical treatment for Pipkin type-II fractures associated with posterior dislocation of the hip and supply the optimal management for these fractures and (2) identify whether the Smith-Petersen approach is a safe and reliable surgical approach for Pipkin type-II fractures.Twenty-four patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: the conservative group (n=12) was treated by closed reduction, and the surgical group (n=12) was treated by primary open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) by bioabsorbable screws via a Smith-Petersen approach. Minimum follow-up was 24 months. Functional outcome was measured using the Thompson and Epstein score and the d'Aubigné-Postel score. Heterotopic ossification was classified based on the Brooker classification. The outcome of the conservative group was worse than that of the surgical group (P=.037). Two patients in the conservative group needed joint replacement for avascular necrosis of the femoral head. Heterotopic ossification was found in 6 patients (1 patient in the conservative group and 5 in the surgical group).Primary ORIF by bioabsorbable screws via a Smith-Petersen approach is an effective treatment for Pipkin type-II fractures associated with posterior dislocation.