Tibial pilon fractures were first described by Étienne Destot in 1911. He used the French word “pilon” (i.e., pestle), to describe the mechanical function of the distal tibia in the ankle joint. This term has further been used to portray the mechanism involved in tibial pilon fractures in which the distal tibia acts as a pestle with heavy axial forces over the talus basically causing the tibia to burst. Many different classification systems exist so far, with the AO Classification being the most commonly used classification in the clinical setting. Especially Type C fractures are extremely difficult to manage as the high energy involved in developing this type of injury frequently damages the soft tissue surrounding the fracture zone severely. Therefore, long -term outcome is often poor and correct initial management crucial. In the early years of this century treatment has evolved to a two–staged protocol, which nowadays is the gold standard of care. Additional methods of treating the soft tissue envelope are currently being investigated and have shown promising results for the future. The aim of this review is therefore to summarize protocols in managing these difficult fractures, review the literature on recent developments and therefore give surgeons a better understanding and ability to handle tibial pilon fractures.

Background and objectives: Electromobility has become increasingly popular. In 2001, Segway personal transporters (Segway) were established for tourists, and e-scooters have been in use since their approval in 2019. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the types of injuries directly related to the use of Segways and e-scooters, respectively, in a German city and to phrase potential safety advice. Materials and Methods: All patients presenting to our emergency department after Segway incidents were retrospectively analyzed and compared with the prospectively collected cohort of patients following e-scooter incidents. Presented injuries were analyzed by body region and injury severity score (ISS). Epidemiological data were collected. Results: Overall, 171 patients were enrolled. The Segway group included 56 patients (mean age 48 years), and the e-scooter group consisted of 115 patients (mean age 33.9 years). Head injuries (HI) occurred in 34% in the Segway group compared to 52% in the e-scooter group. The ISS was approximately equal for both groups (mean ISS Segway group: 6.9/e-scooter group: 5.6). Conclusions: Since the e-scooter group presented a high number of HI along with a higher likelihood and greater severity of HI, mandatory use of helmets is suggested.