Background: The aim of this study was to assess the prospective, longitudinal outcome after arthroscopically assisted open reduction and internal fixation (AORIF) and to compare the results with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in complex ankle fractures. Methods: Acute, closed, bimalleolar equivalent, bimalleolar, or trimalleolar ankle fractures were included. The AORIF cohort was enrolled prospectively. The ORIF group was identified from a retrospective database. The same inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The only difference was the additional arthroscopy in the AORIF cohort. The patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) following AORIF was assessed at 1 and 4 years of follow-up using the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) and Tegner activity scale (TAS). The AORIF cohort was propensity score matched (nearest-neighbor matching) to the ORIF database. The OMAS and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) were compared between the resulting groups. Nonparametric statistics were applied; values are presented as median (interquartile range). Twenty-six AORIF patients had a prospective 4-year follow-up. Results: No significant differences (1 year vs 4 years) were identified for the OMAS (90 [10] vs 90 [11]) and TAS (4 [2] vs 5 [2]). The severity of the cartilage lesions (International Cartilage Repair Society [ICRS] grade <4 vs ICRS of 4) had no significant influence on the PROMs. Twenty-five patients per cohort (AORIF vs ORIF) were matched. The OMAS (90 [13] vs 75 [40]; P = .008) and FAAM Activities of Daily Living (ADL; 96 [11] vs 88 [30]; P = .034) revealed significantly better outcomes for AORIF. More patients in the AORIF cohort returned to sport (96% vs 77%; P = .035), with a higher FAAM Sports score (88 [37] vs 56 [47]; P = .008). Conclusion: AORIF for complex ankle fractures led to consistently good to excellent results. The propensity score–matched analysis revealed a significantly better outcome 4 years after surgery for AORIF compared with ORIF. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Background: Fractures of the fifth metatarsal base (5th MT) are common foot injuries, but their treatment remains a subject of debate. The aim was to assess the midterm outcome of functionally treated epi-metaphyseal fractures (Lawrence and Botte types I and II) of the 5th MT. Methods: This study was a longitudinal retrospective database study with prospective follow-up. Included were all patients with an acute, isolated fracture to the 5th MT base (types I and II). All patients were treated functionally: weightbearing as tolerated without immobilization. Fracture types and fracture characteristics (displacement <2 mm/>2 mm, articular involvement, number of fragments) were assessed retrospectively. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the visual analog scale for foot and ankle (VAS FA) and the quality-of-life score (QoL) SF-12 were collected prospectively at 2- and 5-year follow-up. Out of 95 patients, 43 patients (45%) were included with a median follow-up of 5.7 (1.5) years. Results: For both the VAS FA and SF-12, excellent scores were observed. For 30 patients (77%), longitudinal 2- and 5-year follow-up was available. No significant longitudinal changes could be observed for the VAS FA and SF-12. For both time points, neither fracture type nor characteristics significantly influenced any outcome parameter assessed. Conclusion: Functional treatment by full weightbearing and free range of motion led to excellent 5-year results for both type I and II fractures. Neither fracture location nor characteristics had a significant influence on the 5-year PROMs. Level of Evidence: Level III, comparative study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.