| Literature DB >> 30770996 |
Merel F N Birnie1, Kaz L J van Schilt1, Fay R K Sanders1, Peter Kloen2, Tim Schepers3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus about the optimal treatment of anterior inferior ligament avulsion fractures of the ankle. The aim of this study is to provide insights regarding the incidence of anterior inferior ligament avulsion fractures, the association with fracture type, and correlation with treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Ankle fracture; Fixation; Syndesmosis; Wagstaffe
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30770996 PMCID: PMC6514069 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-019-03138-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg ISSN: 0936-8051 Impact factor: 3.067
Fig. 1AITFL avulsion fracture classification
Patient characteristics
| Patient characteristics total ( | No AITFL avulsion fracture ( | AITFL avulsion fracture ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean age (years) | 43.4 (SD 15.2) | 49.4 (SD 18.0) | |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 102 (54.5%) | 29 (44.6%) | |
| Female | 85 (45.5%) | 36 (55.4%) | |
| Side of ankle fracture | |||
| Left | 77 (41.2%) | 28 (43.1%) | |
| Right | 110 (58.8%) | 37 (56.9%) | |
| History of DM | 12 (6.5%) | 2 (3.1%) | |
| History of CVD | 26 (14%) | 12 (18.5%) | |
| History of smoking | 46 (24.6%) | 12 (18.5%) | |
| Mean packyears (years) | 20.1 (SD 12.7) | 35.0 (17.3) | |
| ASA classification | |||
| 1 and 2 | 168 (89.8%) | 60 (92.3%) | |
| 3 and 4 | 7 (3.7%) | 4 (6.2%) | |
| Missing | 12 (6.4%) | 1 (1.5%) | |
Classification
| Classification system | Total ( | No AITFL avulsion fracture ( | AITFL avulsion fracture ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weber | ||||
| A (SAD) | 2 (0.8%) | 2 (1.1%) | 0 | |
| B (SER) | 156 (61.9%) | 117 (62.6%) | 39 (60.0%) | |
| C (PER) | 91 (36.1%) | 67 (35.8%) | 24 (36.9%) | |
| Missing | 3 (1.2%) | 1 (0.5%) | 2 (3.1%) | |
| Pott’s | ||||
| Unimalleolar | 64 (25.4%) | 56 (29.9%) | 8 (12.3%) | |
| Bimalleolar | 65 (25.8%) | 50 (26.7%) | 15 (23.1%) | |
| Trimalleolar | 123 (48.8%) | 81 (43.3%) | 42 (64.6%) | |
Fig. 2a Wagstaffe type II fracture. b Wagstaffe type III fracture
Weber type and Wagstaffe classification
| Total | Type 1 | Type 2 | Type 3 | Type 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weber A (SAD) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Weber B (SER) | 39 | 0 | 27 (69.2%) | 9 (23.1%) | 3 (7.7%) |
| Weber C (PER) | 24 | 0 | 1 (4.2%) | 21 (87.5%) | 2 (8.3%) |
| Total | 63 | 0 | 28 | 30 | 5 |
Fixation
| < 5 mm | > 5 mm | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| No fixation | 16 (45.7%) | 7 (23.3%) | |
| Fixation of fragment (direct fixation) | 1 (2.9%) | 12 (40.0%) | |
| Syndesmotic screw (indirect fixation) | 12 (34.3%) | 5 (16.7%) | |
| Both | 6 (17.1%) | 6 (20.0%) | |
| Total | 35 | 30 | 65 |
Fig. 3Modified AITFL avulsion fracture classification system