Is Fibular Fixation Necessary with Increasing Proximity in Ankle Fractures: A Survey of OTA and AOFAS Surgeons
Introduction/Purpose: Ankle fractures are one of the most common fractures encountered in orthopedics. The Maisonneuve fracture pattern is described as a pronation, external rotation injury involving the medial ankle structures, the syndesmosis, and the proximal third of the fibula. However, the act...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2024-04-01
|
| Series: | Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011424S00078 |
| _version_ | 1797209894549454848 |
|---|---|
| author | Zachary P. Herzwurm MD Evan Loewy MD Spencer Albertson MD |
| author_facet | Zachary P. Herzwurm MD Evan Loewy MD Spencer Albertson MD |
| author_sort | Zachary P. Herzwurm MD |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction/Purpose: Ankle fractures are one of the most common fractures encountered in orthopedics. The Maisonneuve fracture pattern is described as a pronation, external rotation injury involving the medial ankle structures, the syndesmosis, and the proximal third of the fibula. However, the actual distance from the proximal fibula has not been defined in what distinguishes a Maisonneuve fracture. With Weber C fractures, most surgeons tend to provide fixation to the fibula and reassess the syndesmosis afterwards. When dealing with the proximal fibula “Maisonneuve” fracture pattern, most surgeons would tend to ignore the fibula fracture and focus on syndesmotic reduction. Orthopaedic Trauma Association and American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society provided their opinion via survey in treating increasing proximity of fibula fractures associated with unstable ankle fracture patterns. Methods: A survey was provided to eight OTA and AOFAS orthopedic surgeons. A powerpoint was provided to the surgeons that contained non-weightbearing injury films of eighteen patients. A questionnaire was provided giving two answer choices, address the fibular or syndesmosis primarily. The eighteen ankle fractures were selected based on increasing proximity of the fibula fracture, which ranged from 4.5cm to 32.3cm. The ankle fractures were grouped into four categories to include the Maisonneuve variant based on distance. These fracture radiographs were randomized in order to not influence the surgeon’s opinion during the study. The four groups were as follows: 1. 4.5cm – 7.4cm to include six ankle fracture radiographs 2. 8cm – 10.4cm to include four ankle fracture radiographs 3. 14.6cm to 23.3cm to include five ankle fracture radiographs 4. 30.7cm to 32.3 cm to include three Maisonneuve variant ankle fracture radiographs Results: Regarding section 1, the majority of surgeons responded with open reduction, internal fixation of the fibula as their initial reduction. Section 2, the responses remained consistent with a majority of surgeons choosing to address fibular fixation followed by syndesmotic evaluation. The total number of responses in this section scored 43 answer A selections to 5 answer B selections. Section 3 (14.6-23.3cm) provided the most variability in the responses provided. With 60 possible answer choices, the polled surgeons responded with answer choice A seventeen times and answer choice B 43 times. Section 4 (30.7-32.2cm) or the Maisonneuve produced a steady response of answer choice B. Syndesmotic reduction was performed 34 times compared to only two fibular fixation choices – or answer choice A. Conclusion: The purpose of this study was to evaluate expert opinion on differing treatment as the proximity of the fibular fracture increased in connection with an unstable ankle fracture pattern. General consensus under 10,4cm was to address fibular fixation. However, once the fibular fracture exceeded 14cm, significant variability was noted. These results prove that further biomechanical studies are needed to determine the effect fibular stability in increasing proximity has on the syndesmosis. Chart 1 shows answer selections across the four categories. Chart 2 shows answer selections across the highest variability group 3. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T10:01:57Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5b34d6df431a4b01968f5ba7b42b43d9 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2473-0114 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T10:01:57Z |
| publishDate | 2024-04-01 |
| publisher | SAGE Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics |
| spelling | doaj.art-5b34d6df431a4b01968f5ba7b42b43d92024-04-13T10:04:42ZengSAGE PublishingFoot & Ankle Orthopaedics2473-01142024-04-01910.1177/2473011424S00078Is Fibular Fixation Necessary with Increasing Proximity in Ankle Fractures: A Survey of OTA and AOFAS SurgeonsZachary P. Herzwurm MDEvan Loewy MDSpencer Albertson MDIntroduction/Purpose: Ankle fractures are one of the most common fractures encountered in orthopedics. The Maisonneuve fracture pattern is described as a pronation, external rotation injury involving the medial ankle structures, the syndesmosis, and the proximal third of the fibula. However, the actual distance from the proximal fibula has not been defined in what distinguishes a Maisonneuve fracture. With Weber C fractures, most surgeons tend to provide fixation to the fibula and reassess the syndesmosis afterwards. When dealing with the proximal fibula “Maisonneuve” fracture pattern, most surgeons would tend to ignore the fibula fracture and focus on syndesmotic reduction. Orthopaedic Trauma Association and American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society provided their opinion via survey in treating increasing proximity of fibula fractures associated with unstable ankle fracture patterns. Methods: A survey was provided to eight OTA and AOFAS orthopedic surgeons. A powerpoint was provided to the surgeons that contained non-weightbearing injury films of eighteen patients. A questionnaire was provided giving two answer choices, address the fibular or syndesmosis primarily. The eighteen ankle fractures were selected based on increasing proximity of the fibula fracture, which ranged from 4.5cm to 32.3cm. The ankle fractures were grouped into four categories to include the Maisonneuve variant based on distance. These fracture radiographs were randomized in order to not influence the surgeon’s opinion during the study. The four groups were as follows: 1. 4.5cm – 7.4cm to include six ankle fracture radiographs 2. 8cm – 10.4cm to include four ankle fracture radiographs 3. 14.6cm to 23.3cm to include five ankle fracture radiographs 4. 30.7cm to 32.3 cm to include three Maisonneuve variant ankle fracture radiographs Results: Regarding section 1, the majority of surgeons responded with open reduction, internal fixation of the fibula as their initial reduction. Section 2, the responses remained consistent with a majority of surgeons choosing to address fibular fixation followed by syndesmotic evaluation. The total number of responses in this section scored 43 answer A selections to 5 answer B selections. Section 3 (14.6-23.3cm) provided the most variability in the responses provided. With 60 possible answer choices, the polled surgeons responded with answer choice A seventeen times and answer choice B 43 times. Section 4 (30.7-32.2cm) or the Maisonneuve produced a steady response of answer choice B. Syndesmotic reduction was performed 34 times compared to only two fibular fixation choices – or answer choice A. Conclusion: The purpose of this study was to evaluate expert opinion on differing treatment as the proximity of the fibular fracture increased in connection with an unstable ankle fracture pattern. General consensus under 10,4cm was to address fibular fixation. However, once the fibular fracture exceeded 14cm, significant variability was noted. These results prove that further biomechanical studies are needed to determine the effect fibular stability in increasing proximity has on the syndesmosis. Chart 1 shows answer selections across the four categories. Chart 2 shows answer selections across the highest variability group 3.https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011424S00078 |
| spellingShingle | Zachary P. Herzwurm MD Evan Loewy MD Spencer Albertson MD Is Fibular Fixation Necessary with Increasing Proximity in Ankle Fractures: A Survey of OTA and AOFAS Surgeons Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics |
| title | Is Fibular Fixation Necessary with Increasing Proximity in Ankle Fractures: A Survey of OTA and AOFAS Surgeons |
| title_full | Is Fibular Fixation Necessary with Increasing Proximity in Ankle Fractures: A Survey of OTA and AOFAS Surgeons |
| title_fullStr | Is Fibular Fixation Necessary with Increasing Proximity in Ankle Fractures: A Survey of OTA and AOFAS Surgeons |
| title_full_unstemmed | Is Fibular Fixation Necessary with Increasing Proximity in Ankle Fractures: A Survey of OTA and AOFAS Surgeons |
| title_short | Is Fibular Fixation Necessary with Increasing Proximity in Ankle Fractures: A Survey of OTA and AOFAS Surgeons |
| title_sort | is fibular fixation necessary with increasing proximity in ankle fractures a survey of ota and aofas surgeons |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011424S00078 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zacharypherzwurmmd isfibularfixationnecessarywithincreasingproximityinanklefracturesasurveyofotaandaofassurgeons AT evanloewymd isfibularfixationnecessarywithincreasingproximityinanklefracturesasurveyofotaandaofassurgeons AT spenceralbertsonmd isfibularfixationnecessarywithincreasingproximityinanklefracturesasurveyofotaandaofassurgeons |