Ankle fracture controversies: Do the foot and ankle specialists have a different vision?

• Published in: Revista española de cirugía ortopédica y traumatología (English ed.) Vol. 62; no. 1; pp. 27 - 34
• Main Authors: González-Lucena, G, Pérez-Prieto, D, López-Alcover, A, Ginés-Cespedosa, A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English; Spanish
• Published: 01.01.2018
• ISSN: 2173-576X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.recot.2017.10.001

OBJECTIVETo analyse the differences in the management of ankle fractures between orthopaedic/trauma surgeons and foot and ankle specialists. MATERIAL AND METHODAn e-mail survey was performed asking some of the country's orthopaedic surgeons controversial questions regarding the analysis of 5 clinical cases of different ankle fractures. RESULTSSeventy-two surgeons responded to the questionnaire (response rate of 24.2%): 37 foot and ankle specialists and 35 non-specialist orthopaedic surgeons. For trimalleolar fracture, 40.5% of the specialists would request a computed tomography scan compared to 14% of the non-specialists (P=.01). Ninety-four percent of all the respondents would synthesise the posterior malleolus; 91% of the non-specialists would use an antero-posterior approach, either with a plate or with screws (P=.006). No differences were found between groups in the treatment of syndesmotic injuries (P>.05). For trans-syndesmotic fracture (Weber B) with signs of medial instability, 54% of the non-specialists would revise the internal lateral ligament compared to only 32% of the specialists (P=.06). CONCLUSIONSThe foot and ankle specialists ask for more complementary tests to diagnose ankle fractures. In turn, they use a greater diversity of surgical techniques in synthesis of the posterior malleolus (posterior plate) and the medial malleolus (cerclage wires). Finally, they indicated a lower revision rate of the internal lateral ligament.