| Literature DB >> 32216805 |
Ezequiel Palmanovich1, Nissim Ohana2, Eyal Yaacobi2, David Segal2, Hetsroni Iftach2, Zachary T Sharfman3, Matias Vidra4, Ran Atzmon5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A proper reduction and internal fixation of posterior malleolar fractures can be challenging, as intraoperative fluoroscopy often underestimates the extent of the fracture. Our aim was to assess the value of a modified classification system for posterior malleolar fractures, which is based on computed tomography (CT) images, optimizing screw trajectory during fluoroscopic-guided surgery, and to compare it to the Lauge-Hansen classification system to the CT-based classification.Entities:
Keywords: Computed tomography; Posterior malleolar fracture; Preoperative planning; Surgical technique; X-ray
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32216805 PMCID: PMC7099790 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-020-01637-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1A method for CT-based classification of posterior malleolar fractures. a Superimposed on an axial CT image of the ankle, a solid line is subtended between the medial and lateral malleoli. Then, a second (dashed) line is drawn perpendicularly to the first intermalleolar line, dividing the posterior malleolus area into medial and lateral segments. b–d CT images showing the different fracture types: postero-lateral (b), postero-medial (c), and postero-central (d)
Fig. 2A reference K-wire (rKW) is inserted midway between the medial malleolus and the Chaput prominence, parallel to the articular surface in antero-posterior direction
Fig. 3A second K-wire is inserted as a guide-pin for the screw in the correct trajectory angle in order to intersect and adequately stabilize the posterior malleolar fragment. The direction of this K-wire corresponds to the mean trajectory angle of the specific fracture type calculated on the axial CT cut
Fig. 4Axial CT image demonstrating the trajectory angle and ideal screw lag placement in postero-lateral type posterior malleolar fracture
Trajectory angles in each of the CT-based posterior malleolar fracture types
| Fracture type | Number (%) of cases | Mean TA (range) (°) |
|---|---|---|
| Postero-medial | 4 (4.7%) | 28 (25–31) |
| Postero-central | 20 (23.5%) | 7 (2–13) |
| Postero-lateral | 61 (71.8%) | 21 (17–26) |
For “postero-medial” fragments, the trajectory angle line is typically subtended from a starting point medial to the AP central line. For “postero-lateral” and “postero-central” fragments, the trajectory angle line is typically subtended from a starting point lateral to the AP central line
TA trajectory angle
Trajectory angles in each of the Lauge-Hansen classification-based posterior malleolar fracture types
| Fracture type | Number (%) of cases | Mean TA (range) (°) |
|---|---|---|
| Pronation abduction injury—type II | 5 (5.9%) | 18.4 (5.4–22.7) |
| Pronation abduction injury—type III | 20 (23.5%) | 19.4 (3.5–30.9) |
| Pronation lateral rotation injury—type IV | 13 (15.3%) | 20.7 (10.8–31.7) |
| Supination abduction injury—type II | 1 (1.2%) | 3 |
| Supination lateral rotation injury—type III | 8 (9.4%) | 17.7 (2.1–22.9) |
| Supination lateral rotation injury—type IV | 32 (37.6%) | 18.1 (2.1–26.7) |
| Isolated posterior lip injury | 6 (7.1%) | 16.3 (4.4–22.3) |
TA trajectory angle