Comparison of the clinical efficacy in staged open reduction internal fixation and external fixation combined with limited internal fixation for the treatment of high-energy tibial Pilon fracture.
10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.20240137
- Author:
Wei-Qing CHEN
1
;
Ye-Hai CHEN
1
;
Jun-Rong SHU
1
;
Bao-Ping XU
1
;
Bao-Lin CHEN
1
;
Jun-Tao YANG
1
;
Xiu-Po HU
1
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopaedics, Dongyang Huayuantian Hospital, Dongyang 322121, Zhejiang, China.
- Publication Type:English Abstract
- Keywords:
Complication;
External fixator;
High-energy fracture;
Limited internal fixation;
Tibial Pilon fracture
- MeSH:
Humans;
Male;
Female;
Middle Aged;
Adult;
Tibial Fractures/physiopathology*;
Fracture Fixation, Internal/methods*;
Retrospective Studies;
External Fixators;
Open Fracture Reduction/methods*;
Treatment Outcome
- From:
China Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
2025;38(7):716-721
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To compare the clinical efficacy and complication rates of staged open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and external fixation combined with limited internal fixation (EFLIF) in the treatment of high-energy Pilon fractures.
METHODS:A retrospective selection was conducted on 78 patients diagnosed with high-energy tibial Pilon fractures who received treatment between January 2021 and October 2023. These patients were categorized into the staged ORIF group and the EFLIF group according to their respective treatment protocols. The staged ORIF group comprised 48 patients, including 29 males and 19 females, aged from 33 to 53 years old with a mean age of (43.25±4.67) years old. The time from injury to treatment averaged (6.54±2.21) hours. All patients received staged ORIF treatment. The EFLIF Group consisted of 30 patients, including 18 males and 12 females, aged from 36 to 54 years old with a mean age of (43.37±3.24) years old. The time from injury to treatment averaged (6.87±1.96) hours. All patients received EFLIF treatment. The recovery of ankle joint function, fracture reduction quality, fracture healing time, and surgical-related indicators between two groups were observed and compared six months after surgery. Additionally, the postoperative complications of the two groups were recorded.
RESULTS:Both groups of patients were followed up and the duration ranged from 6 to 12 months, with an average of (8.97±1.26) months. At 6-month postoperative follow-up, the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score in the ORIF group was (83.15±20.93), which did not show a statistically significant difference compared to the EFLIF group (81.88±20.67), P>0.05. The excellent and good rate of fracture reduction in the staged ORIF group was 33.33% (16/48), which did not show a statistically significant difference compared to the EFLIF group (30.00%, 9/30), P>0.05. The hospitalization duration and fracture healing time in the staged ORIF group were (16.57±1.25) days and (12.14±1.15) weeks, respectively. When compared to the EFLIF group, which demonstrated a hospitalization duration of (15.97±2.16 ) days and a fracture healing time of (12.36±1.17) weeks, no statistically significant differences were observed (P>0.05). The intraoperative blood loss in the staged ORIF group was (76.54±11.65) ml, which was significantly higher than that in the EFLIF group (70.15±10.29) ml, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The incidence of superficial tissue infection was 2.08%(1/48), which was significantly lower than that observed in the EFLIF group at 16.67% (5/30), and this difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION:Both staged ORIF and EFLIF were effective treatment options for high-energy closed Pilon fractures of the tibia. However, regarding the prevention of superficial tissue infection, staged ORIF demonstrates superior risk control compared to EFLIF.
