Plate fixation versus percutaneous rush pinning for osteosynthesis of the fibula in pilon fractures. A retrospective comparative study

• Published in: Hippokratia Vol. 25; no. 2; pp. 63 - 68
• Main Authors: Poutoglidou, F, Metaxiotis, D, Vasiliadis, A V, Mpeletsiotis, A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: SOCIETY OF "FRIENDS OF HIPPOKRATIA JOURNAL" 01.01.2021
• ISSN: 1108-4189; 1790-8019

BACKGROUNDPilon fractures are complex injuries of the ankle associated with many postoperative complications. The optimal treatment for pilon fractures has not yet been established. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and compare the results of percutaneous rush pinning of the associated fibular fracture to the conventional open reduction and internal fixation. METHODSWe included in the study all patients admitted in our department with the diagnosis of pilon fracture and associated fracture of the distal fibula and treated with primary open reduction and internal fixation between 2012 and 2018. We excluded patients treated with a two-stage approach, and those with an open fracture or neurovascular insufficiency. RESULTSThe study included 87 patients; 45 had their distal fibular fracture operatively fixed with a one-third tubular plate (ORIF group), and the remaining 42 patients underwent percutaneous intramedullary pinning of the fibula fracture with a rush nail (Rush group). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding age, gender, mechanism of injury, operating, and hospitalization time. The superficial infection rate was lower in the Rush group (p =0.039), but there were no statistically significant differences in the deep tissue infection, nonunion, and malunion incidence between the groups. CONCLUSIONPercutaneous intramedullary rush pinning of the concomitant fibular fracture is a safe and reliable alternative treatment option in managing pilon fractures that could reduce the incidence of postoperative wound complications HIPPOKRATIA 2021, 25 (2):63-68.