Profile vs Tubular Plate in Unimalleolar or Bimalleolar Fractures: is There a Real Difference in Wound complications?

Category: Ankle; Trauma Introduction/Purpose: The aim of our study is to compare two types of plates, one third tubular plate and LCP distal fibula plate, evaluating the clinical outcome and the skin complications associated with their use. Methods: We collected the data of 122 consecutive unimalleolar or bimalleolar fractures treated by internal fixation for a closed, displaced distal closed fibular fracture. Exclusion criteria were: 1) open ankle fractures,2) trimalleolar fractures, 3) previous ankle fractures 4) severe venous insufficiency, 5) ankleosteoarthritis previous to surgery, 6) associated ankle dislocation. After this selection, 93 patients were included in our study and assigned in two groups, based on using of different implant: in group A48 patients were treated with one-third tubular and in group B 45 patients were treated with LCP distalfibula plate. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Patients received the same surgical procedure and the same post-operative care, then they were radiologically evaluated at1-3-12 months and clinical examination was made at 24 (range 15-36) months using AOFAS clinical rating system. All data were evaluated using chi-square test. Results: At the final 24-month follow-up a comparison between the two groups showed no statistical significant differences in reduction accuracy and bone union ratio at radiological examination. The wound complications rate of the overall study group was 7.6%. There were no statistical differences in the rate of wound complications between the two groups. There were no differences between both group in percentage of hardware removal at follow-up (overall 5.4%). In the group A occurred 1 deep infection, 2 superficial infection, no wound dehiscence; in group B occured 1 deep infection, 1 superficial infection and 2 wound dehiscence. There were no statistical differences in the rate of wound complications between the two groups (p=0.70; Fisher exact test). Conclusion: Our study has shown no difference in radiographic bone union rate, no significant differences in terms of clinical outcomes, in time of bone reduction and wound complication rate between the LCP distalfibula plate and conventional one-third tubular plate. RCT or metanalasys are in this case useful to improve scientific evidence and give more information for the correct surgical treatment of ankle fractures.