Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Posterior Pilon Fracture: Transfibular Approach vs Posterior Approach

Research Type Level 3 - Retrospective cohort study, Case-control study, Meta-analysis of Level 3 studies Introduction/Purpose For posterior pilon fractures, the posterior approach (PA) is widely used but has its limitations. The transfibular approach (TFA) has been adopted to treat posterior malleolar fractures for the advantage of direct visual confirmation of the reduction status intraoperatively, yet the report of its application on posterior pilon fractures is rare. This study aims to compare TFA with PA in terms of their corresponding reduction quality. Methods Clinical data of 85 posterior pilon fracture patients treated via PA (n = 62) or TFA (n = 23) were retrospectively reviewed. Radiographic and clinical assessments, including articular step-off or gap, syndesmosis reduction quality, signs of ankle arthritis, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score, visual analogue scale (VAS), ankle stability, and the active range of motion (ROM) of the ankle, were all evaluated by two readers independently. Results The total incidence of step-off or gap ≥ 1 mm was significantly higher in the PA group (35.5%) than in the TFA group (8.7%, p = 0.015). In all the patients, step-off ≥ 1 mm was identified as an independent risk factor for the development of arthritis and a lower AOFAS score (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found in ROM and complication incidence between the two groups. Ankle instability was found in neither group during the follow-up. Conclusion TFA could offer a way to intraoperatively evaluate the reduction status with direct visual confirmation and, thereby, might improve the results of reduction for posterior pilon fractures.