Literature DB >> 12213426

Do type B malleolar fractures need a positioning screw?

D Heim1, V Schmidlin, O Ziviello.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Type B malleolar fractures (AO/ASIF classification) are usually stable ankle joint fractures. Nonetheless, some show a residual instability after internal fixation requiring further stabilization. How often does such a situation occur and can these unstable fractures be recognized beforehand?From 1995 to 1997, 111 malleolar fractures (three type A, 90 type B, 18 type C) were operated on. Seventeen out of 90 patients (19%) with a type B fracture showed residual instability after internal fixation (one unilateral, four bimalleolar and 12 trimalleolar fractures). Five of these patients showed a dislocation in the sagittal plane (anteroposterior) clinically or on the radiographs, five a dislocation in the coronal plane with dislocation of the tibia on the medial aspect of the ankle joint, and four an incongruency on the medial aspect of the joint. In three cases, no preoperative abnormality indicating instability was found. The fractures were all fixed using an additional positioning screw. In 11 patients, the positioning screw was removed after 8-12 weeks, in six patients removal was performed after 1 year along with removal of the plate. All 17 patients were reviewed 1 year after internal fixation, 16/17 showed a good or excellent result with identical or only minor impairment of range of motion of the ankle joint.
CONCLUSION: Unstable ankle joints after internal fixation of type B malleolar fractures exist. Residual instability most often occurs after trimalleolar fractures with initial joint dislocation. Treatment with an additional positioning screw generally produced a satisfactory result.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12213426     DOI: 10.1016/s0020-1383(01)00199-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.586


  9 in total

Review 1.  Conservative and surgical management of acute isolated syndesmotic injuries: ESSKA-AFAS consensus and guidelines.

Authors:  C Niek van Dijk; Umile Giuseppe Longo; Mattia Loppini; Pino Florio; Ludovica Maltese; Mauro Ciuffreda; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  [Problems and controversies in the treatment of ankle fractures].

Authors:  S Rammelt; D Heim; L C Hofbauer; R Grass; H Zwipp
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.000

3.  Diagnosing syndesmotic instability in ankle fractures.

Authors:  Michel Pj van den Bekerom
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2011-07-18

4.  Tightrope walking: A new technique in ankle syndesmosis fixation.

Authors:  Jonelle M Petscavage; Francisco Perez; Leila Khorashadi; Michael L Richardson
Journal:  Radiol Case Rep       Date:  2015-11-06

5.  Syndesmosis screw breakage: An analysis of multiple breakage locations.

Authors:  Josh W Vander Maten; Matthew McCracken; Jiayong Liu; Nabil A Ebraheim
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-01-22

6.  [Osteosynthesis of Weber B ankle fractures using the one-third tubular plate and refixation of the syndesmosis].

Authors:  C Spering; V Lesche; K Dresing
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2015-08-06       Impact factor: 1.154

Review 7.  To retain or remove the syndesmotic screw: a review of literature.

Authors:  T Schepers
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 8.  Acute distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: a systematic review of suture-button versus syndesmotic screw repair.

Authors:  Tim Schepers
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-02-09       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  The Global Status of Research in Ankle Fracture: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study.

Authors:  Jianshuang Zeng; Cheng Xu; Gaoxiang Xu; Daofeng Wang; Wupeng Zhang; Hua Li; Xuewen Gan; Ying Xiong; Jiantao Li; Licheng Zhang; Peifu Tang
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-03-14
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.