| Literature DB >> 34454566 |
Fangke Hu1, Guoyun Bu1, Jun Liang2, Haijing Huang2, Jinquan He3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fracture of the medial malleolus is one of the most frequent injuries treated surgically; however, the classification of the fracture has not attracted much attention and a good classification system is still lacking.Entities:
Keywords: 3-D reconstruction CT; Classification; Fracture; Medial malleolus
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34454566 PMCID: PMC8400757 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02688-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1The modified Pankovich classification and the Herscovici classification to classify the medial malleolar fractures. a The modified Pankovich classification. b The Herscovici classification
Fig. 2The new fracture line system to classify the medial malleolar fractures according to the 3-D reconstruction CT
Comparison of the characteristics among the groups of the new fracture line classification
| Characteristics | Type 1 ( | Type 2 ( | Type 3 ( | Type 4 ( | Total ( | Significance ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 (42.4%) | 58 (51.8%) | 44 (53.7%) | 24 (52.2%) | 140 (51.3%) | 0.742 | ||
| 19 (57.6%) | 54 (48.2%) | 38 (46.3%) | 22 (47.8%) | 133 (48.7%) | |||
| 44.4 ± 17.9 | 45.1 ± 16.4 | 49.0 ± 14.2 | 46.1 ± 14.8 | 46.4 ± 15.7 | 0.325 | ||
| 28 (84.8%) | 92 (82.1%) | 59 (72.0%) | 37 (80.4%) | 216 (79.1%) | 0.275 | ||
| 5 (15.2%) | 20 (17.9%) | 23 (28.0%) | 9 (19.6%) | 57 (20.9%) | |||
| 30 (90.9%) | 90 (80.4%) | 52 (63.4%) | 34 (73.9%) | 206 (75.5%) | |||
| 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (7.3%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (2.2%) | |||
| 3 (9.1%) | 22 (19.6%) | 22 (26.8%) | 12 (26.1%) | 59 (21.6%) | |||
| 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (0.7%) | |||
| 0 (0%) | 2 (1.8%) | 7 (8.5%) | 1 (2.2%) | 10 (3.7%) | |||
| 29 (87.9%) | 87 (77.7%) | 50 (61.0%) | 30 (65.2%) | 196 (71.8%) | |||
| 4 (12.1%) | 23 (20.5%) | 25 (30.5%) | 15 (32.6%) | 67 (24.5%) | |||
| 32 (97.0%) | 1 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 33 (12.1%) | |||
| 1 (3.0%) | 1 (0.9%) | 0 (0%) | 16 (34.8%) | 18 (6.6%) | |||
| 0 (0%) | 110 (98.2%) | 82 (100%) | 30 (65.2%) | 222 (81.3%) | |||
| 28 (38.9%) | 39 (34.8%) | 2 (1.1%) | 3 (6.5%) | 72 (26.4%) | |||
| 5 (15.2%) | 73 (65.2%) | 60 (73.2%) | 14 (30.4%) | 152 (55.7%) | |||
| 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 20 (24.4%) | 29 (63.0%) | 49 (17.9%) | |||
| 3 (9.1%) | 108 (96.4%) | 77 (93.9%) | 16 (34.8%) | 204 (74.7%) | |||
| 30 (90.9%) | 4 (3.6%) | 5 (6.1%) | 30 (65.2%) | 69 (25.3%) | |||
| 28 (84.8%) | 95 (84.8%) | 55 (67.1%) | 11 (23.9%) | 189 (69.2%) | |||
| 5 (15.2%) | 17 (15.2%) | 27 (32.9%) | 35 (76.1%) | 84 (30.8%) | |||
| 26 (78.8%) | 68 (60.7%) | 45 (54.9%) | 25 (54.3%) | 164 (60.0%) | |||
| 6 (18.2%) | 26 (23.2%) | 19 (23.2%) | 17 (37.0%) | 68 (24.9%) | |||
| 1 (3.0%) | 18 (16.1%) | 18 (21.9%) | 4 (8.7%) | 41 (15.0%) | |||
| 32 (97.0%) | 107 (95.5%) | 80 (97.6%) | 45 (97.8%) | 264 (96.7%) | 0.836 | ||
| 1 (3.0%) | 5 (4.5%) | 2 (2.4%) | 1 (2.2%) | 9 (3.3%) | |||
| 6.9 ± 4.1 | 8.6 ± 5.8 | 9.0 ± 5.8 | 5.1 ± 3.4 | 7.9 ± 5.4 | |||
| 33 (100%) | 106 (94.6%) | 55 (67.1%) | 17 (37.0%) | 211 (77.3%) | |||
| 0 (0%) | 6 (5.4%) | 27 (32.9%) | 29 (63.0%) | 62 (22.7%) | |||
| 6.6 ± 12.1 | 16.3 ± 13.3 | 37.2 ± 17.0 | 55.0 ± 14.8 | 26.3 ± 21.0 | |||
| 33 (100%) | 112 (100%) | 82 (100%) | 35 (76.1%) | 262 (96.0%) | |||
| 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 11 (23.9%) | 11 (4.0%) | |||
| 32 (97.0%) | 109 (97.3%) | 75 (91.5%) | 25 (54.3%) | 239 (88.3%) | |||
| 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (6.1%) | 16 (34.8%) | 23 (7.7%) | |||
| 1 (3.0%) | 3 (2.7%) | 2 (2.4%) | 5 (10.9%) | 11 (4.0%) | |||
| 25 (80.6%) | 83 (76.9%) | 55 (67.9%) | 29 (65.9%) | 192 (72.7%) | 0.274 | ||
| 6 (19.4%) | 25 (23.1%) | 26 (32.1%) | 15 (34.1%) | 72 (27.3%) | |||
| 8 (25.8%) | 44 (40.7%) | 38 (47.0%) | 2 (4.5%) | 92 (34.9%) | |||
| 14 (45.2%) | 35 (32.4%) | 26 (32.1%) | 9 (20.5%) | 84 (31.8%) | |||
| 9 (29%) | 29 (26.9%) | 17 (21.0%) | 33 (75.0%) | 88 (33.3%) | |||
*Statistically significant P < 0.05. SA supination-adduction, SE supination-external rotation, PA pronation-abduction, PE pronation-external rotation
Fig. 3Representative 3-D reconstruction CT images of type 1/2/3 in cases of Lauge-Hansen supination-external rotation (SE) compared with pronation-external rotation (PE). a Type 1 of SE. b Type 1 of PE. c Type 2 of SE. d Type 2 of PE. e Type 3 of SE. f Type 3 of PE
The distribution of comminuted medial malleolus fracture by fracture lines
| Fracture lines | Fracture line 1 | Fracture line 2 | Fracture line 3 | Fracture line 4 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33 (12.1%) | 105 (38.5%) | 73 (26.7%) | 18 (6.6%) | 229 (83.9%) | |
| – | 5 (1.8%) | 4 (1.5%) | 10 (3.7%) | 19 (7.0%) | |
| 5 (1.8%) | – | 7 (2.6%) | 15 (5.5%) | 27 (9.9%) | |
| 4 (1.5%) | 7 (2.6%) | – | 3 (1.1%) | 14 (5.1%) | |
| 10 (3.7%) | 15 (5.5%) | 3 (1.1%) | – | 28 (10.3%) |
Fig. 4The comminuted fracture pattern of type 4. a Isolated fracture line 4. b Fracture line 4 together with fracture line 1. c Fracture line 4 together with fracture line 2. d Fracture line 4 together with fracture line 3
Fig. 5The comminuted fracture pattern of fracture line 1/2/3. a Fracture line 1 together with fracture line 2. b Fracture line 1 together with fracture line 3. c Fracture line 2 together with fracture line 3