|تاریخ چاپ: 1399/09/05|
|The Outcomes of Pilon Fracture Treatment: Primary Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Two stage Approach|
|Author(s):||Mohammadreza Minator Sajjadi، Adel Ebrahimpour، Mohammad A. Okhovatpour، Amin Karimi، Reza Zandi *، Amir Sharifzadeh|
BackgroundPilon fracture is one of the challenging injuries in orthopedic surgery. Associated soft tissue injury is an important factor in choosing treatment options. Two major methods of treatment are considered as one-stage open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and two-stage treatment (primary external fixation and secondary ORIF). The latter is most accepted in literature. In the current study, we compared the results of these two methods.
MethodsIn a retrospective study, 41 patients were assigned to two groups containing one-stage primary ORIF (21 patients) group, and two-stage group included external fixation and secondary ORIF (20 patients). The rate of infection (superficial or deep infection, osteomyelitis), malunion, nonunion, duration of hospital stay, neurovascular injury, pain intensity, and patients’ satisfaction with AOFAS score, were compared between the two groups.
ResultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups in measured variables except hospital stay which was significantly longer for the two-stage group.
ConclusionBased on our findings, we recommend using one stage ORIF for a patient with Pilon fractures type C and Tscherne 1, 2 if the patient is planned to be operated on during the first 24 hours after the injury. Level of evidence: II
|Keywords:||External fixation، Infection، Open reduction internal fixation، Pilon fracture، Two-stage surgery|
|Article Type:||Research/Original Article|
|Published:||Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery, Volume:5 Issue: 5, 2018|
|Full text:||PDF is available on the website.|