Minifragment plating of the fibula in unstable ankle fractures

Abstract

Introduction Only 6.4–17% of the load is transmitted through the fibula when weight-bearing. Plate fixation of distal fibular fractures using minifragments (≤ 2.8 mm) could lead to similar reduction with less implant removal (IR) rates, compared to small-fragment plates (3.5 mm). We hypothesized that the use of minifragment plates is at least similar in unscheduled secondary surgery. Materials and methods In this retrospective cohort study, all patients with surgically treated distal fibular fractures between October 2015 and March 2021 were included. Patients treated with plate fixation using minifragments and patients treated with small-fragment plates were compared regarding the following outcomes: secondary dislocation, malreduction, implant malposition, nonunion, surgical site infections (SSI) and IR. Results Sixty-five patients (54.2%) received a minifragment implant (≤ 2.8 mm) and 55 patients (45.8%) received a small-fragment implant (3.5 mm). There were no patients needing secondary surgery in the minifragment group compared to 9 patients following fixation using small-fragment implants (3 with secondary dislocation, 5 with malreduction and 1 with malposition, p = 0.001). SSI rates were 3.1% for minifragment and 9.1% for small-fragment implants (p = 0.161). Implant removal was performed significantly less often following use of minifragment implants (17.8% and 53.2%, p < 0.001). Conclusions In this cohort, minifragment plate fixation for distal fibular fractures is an adequate fixation method offering stable fixation with significant lower need for implant removal and comparable complications to small-fragment plates, although an adequately powered randomized controlled study is needed for implementation in a clinical setting. Level of evidence Therapeutic, III.

Functional outcome of routine versus on-demand removal of the syndesmotic screw

“…The removal rate in the current study (after four years) was expected to be higher, but this included mainly removal of all implants in one single procedure instead of two. 30 This shows that more than half of the patients have no need for a separate SS removal procedure, compared to RR. This has advantageous economic consequences and avoids possible complications following removal.…”