ObjectivePilon fracture is so complex that its therapy poses a great challenge to surgeons. Few studies have compared arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy and external fixation combined with limited internal fixation (EFLIF), and an optimal choice of surgical therapy remains unclear in patients with type III Pilon fracture. Moreover, to our knowledge, very few studies have specifically evaluated arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy in Chinese elderly with type III Pilon fracture. The current study was performed to observe the clinical application of arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy, compared with EFLIF, in Chinese elderly with type III Pilon fracture.MethodsThere were 230 Chinese elderly with type III Pilon fracture assigned to undergo EFLIF (group A, n=115) or arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy (group B, n=115), and followed up for 1 year after surgery.ResultsAge, sex, causes, sides and types of Pilon fractures were not different between the two groups (P>0.05 for all). Compared with EFLIF, arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy achieved a better reduction result, bone union and Mazur system (P<0.05 for all). Patient satisfaction, screw loosening and infection prevalence were not different between the two groups (P>0.05 for all). There was no skin necrosis in the two groups. Traumatic arthritis had a significantly lower prevalence in participants with arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy than EFLIF (P<0.05 for all).ConclusionCompared with EFLIF, arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy for type III Pilon fracture significantly improved reduction result, bone union and functional status, and decreased traumatic arthritis, demonstrating that arthroscopy-assisted minimally invasive therapy is an optimal choice for type III Pilon fracture in Chinese elderly.