Arthroscopically Assisted Versus Standard Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Techniques for the Acute Ankle Fracture

Abstract

Background: Ankle fractures represent one of the most common orthopaedic injuries requiring operative treatment. Although open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fractures leads to good results in most patients, poor functional outcomes continue to be reported in some patients for whom anatomic reduction was achieved. It has been theorized that these lesser outcomes may in part be due to a component of missed intra-articular injury that reportedly ranges between 20% and 79%, although to date the true explanation for this subset of lower functional outcomes remains unknown. Such concerns have recently spawned novel techniques of arthroscopically assisted ankle fracture assessment in hopes of enabling better detection and treatment of concomitant intra-articular ankle injuries. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the literature comparing standard ORIF to arthroscopically assisted ORIF (AAORIF) for ankle fractures.

Methods: A systematic review of the English literature was performed using the PubMed database to access all studies over the last 50 years that have documented the functional outcomes of acute ankle fracture management using either a traditional ORIF or an AAORIF technique in the adult population. Relevant publications were analyzed for their respective Levels of Evidence as well as any perceived differences reported in operative time, outcomes, and complications.

Results: A total of only 14 ORIF and 4 AAORIF papers fit the criteria for review. There is fair quality (grade B) evidence to support good to excellent outcomes following traditional ORIF of malleolar fractures. There is fair-quality (grade B) evidence that ankle arthroscopy can be successfully employed for identification and treatment of intra-articular injuries associated with acute ankle fractures, but insufficient (grade I) evidence examining the functional outcomes and complication rates after treatment of these injuries and little documentation that this approach portends any improvement in patient outcome over historical techniques. There is also insufficient (grade I) evidence from 2 prospective randomized studies and 1 case-control study to provide any direct comparative data on functional outcomes, complication rates or total operative time between AAORIF and ORIF for the treatment of acute ankle fractures.

Conclusions: Ankle arthroscopy is a valuable tool in identifying and treating intra-articular lesions associated with ankle fractures. The presence of such intra-articular pathology may lead to the unexpectedly poor outcomes seen in some patients who undergo surgical fixation of ankle fractures with otherwise anatomic reduction on postoperative radiographs; the ability to diagnose and address these lesions therefore has the potential to improve patient outcomes. To date, however, currently available literature has not shown that treatment of these intra-articular injuries provides any improvement in outcomes over standard ORIF, and few prospective randomized controlled studies have been performed comparing these 2 operative techniques-rendering any suggestion that AAORIF improves clinical outcomes over traditional ORIF difficult to justify. Further research is indicated for what may be a potentially promising surgical adjunct before we can advocate its routine use in these patients.

Level of evidence: Level II, systematic review.

Keywords: ankle ORIF; ankle arthroscopy; ankle fracture; outcomes.