OBJECTIVES: To present long-term patient-reported outcomes of tibial plafond fractures with and without concomitant ankle syndesmotic injury. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ninety-seven patients with tibial plafond fractures (OTA/AO 43-B and 43-C) treated with definitive surgical fixation were contacted by telephone or email to obtain patient-reported outcome scores at a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Of those contacted, 148 (75%) had an intact syndesmosis, whereas 49 (25%) experienced a syndesmotic injury. INTERVENTION: The intervention involved open reduction internal fixation of the tibial plafond with syndesmosis repair when indicated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The main outcome measurement included patient-reported ankle pain and function using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference and physical function (PF). RESULTS: The cohort including patients with syndesmotic injury had significantly more open fractures (syndesmotic injury = 39%, no syndesmotic injury = 16%, P = 0.001), higher rates of end-stage reconstruction (syndesmotic injury = 27%, no syndesmotic injury = 10%, P = 0.004), and worse PROMIS PF (syndesmotic injury = 42.5 [SD = 8.0], no syndesmotic injury = 47.1 [SD = 9.6], P = 0.045) scores at final follow-up when compared with the cohort comprising patients with no syndesmotic injury. Patients with syndesmotic injury trended toward higher rates of postoperative infection, but this association was not statistically significant. There was no difference between the groups in nonunion or PROMIS pain interference scores. CONCLUSION: Patients with a tibial plafond fracture and concomitant syndesmotic injury had significantly worse PROMIS PF scores, more end-stage ankle reconstructions, and more open fractures. Syndesmotic injury in the setting of tibial plafond fractures portends worse patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
OBJECTIVES: To present long-term patient-reported outcomes of tibial plafond fractures with and without concomitant ankle syndesmotic injury. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic Level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ninety-seven patients with tibial plafond fractures (OTA/AO 43-B and 43-C) treated with definitive surgical fixation were contacted by telephone or email to obtain patient-reported outcome scores at a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Of those contacted, 148 (75%) had an intact syndesmosis, whereas 49 (25%) experienced a syndesmotic injury. INTERVENTION: The intervention involved open reduction internal fixation of the tibial plafond with syndesmosis repair when indicated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The main outcome measurement included patient-reported ankle pain and function using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference and physical function (PF). RESULTS: The cohort including patients with syndesmotic injury had significantly more open fractures (syndesmotic injury = 39%, no syndesmotic injury = 16%, P = 0.001), higher rates of end-stage reconstruction (syndesmotic injury = 27%, no syndesmotic injury = 10%, P = 0.004), and worse PROMIS PF (syndesmotic injury = 42.5 [SD = 8.0], no syndesmotic injury = 47.1 [SD = 9.6], P = 0.045) scores at final follow-up when compared with the cohort comprising patients with no syndesmotic injury. Patients with syndesmotic injury trended toward higher rates of postoperative infection, but this association was not statistically significant. There was no difference between the groups in nonunion or PROMIS pain interference scores. CONCLUSION: Patients with a tibial plafond fracture and concomitant syndesmotic injury had significantly worse PROMIS PF scores, more end-stage ankle reconstructions, and more open fractures. Syndesmotic injury in the setting of tibial plafond fractures portends worse patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Annechien Beumer; Wouter L W van Hemert; Bart A Swierstra; Louis E Jasper; Stephen M Belkoff Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Justin M Haller; David Holt; David L Rothberg; Erik N Kubiak; Thomas F Higgins Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Elizabeth B Gausden; Ashley Levack; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Danielle Sin; David S Wellman; Dean G Lorich Journal: Foot Ankle Int Date: 2018-07-04 Impact factor: 2.827
Authors: Andrew N Pollak; Melissa L McCarthy; R Shay Bess; Julie Agel; Marc F Swiontkowski Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Donald D Anderson; Teresa Mosqueda; Thaddeus Thomas; Evan L Hermanson; Thomas D Brown; J Lawrence Marsh Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Kenneth A Egol; Brian Pahk; Michael Walsh; Nirmal C Tejwani; Roy I Davidovitch; Kenneth J Koval Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Mohammadreza Minator Sajjadi; Adel Ebrahimpour; Mohammad A Okhovatpour; Amin Karimi; Reza Zandi; Amir Sharifzadeh Journal: Arch Bone Jt Surg Date: 2018-09