•  
  •  
 

Corresponding Author

Elmasry, Moataz

Document Type

Original Article

Abstract

Background: The present study aims to compare the results of primary tibial pilon injury . Objective: Our work aims to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of two different surgical techniques for treatment of tibial pilon fractures. Patients & Methods: Those who matched completely with inclusion criteria were included until fully gaining required sample size. Prospective comparative controlled study using the foot and ankle outcome questionnaire of AAOS. The study was carried on patients with distal tibial fractures that are types 43 (B&C1, C2, C3) OTA classification of distal tibial fractures. patients divided for two groups according to surgical technique: group (A):(30) patients managed with primary external fixator with screws. group (B):(30) patients Managed with staged ORIF. Results: Group B showed a higher AAOS Foot and Ankle Normative score and AAOS foot and ankle core scale standardized mean and shoe comfort standardized mean and shoe comfort normative score and SF36 physical functioning% than Group A. Group A showed a less time interval from injury till fixation than Group B. From statistical point of view the two groups showed no significant difference regarding incidence of acquired complications. Conclusion: The two-stage ORIF gained a reduced risk of postoperative complications related to superficial infections, and bone healing problems. The ORIF 2 stage has several advantages, such as the ability to handle soft tissues including the periosteum, tendons(PTT), and ligaments that may be contained within fragmented fracture .

Keywords

Tibial pilon fracture; External fixator; Fixator aided with screws; Staged open fixation

Download

Share

COinS