Open reduction and internal fixation versus closed reduction and percutaneous fixation in the treatment of Bennett fractures: A systematic review

Injury ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (8) ◽  
pp. 1470-1477 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.P.A. Greeven ◽  
J. Van Groningen ◽  
N.W.L. Schep ◽  
E.M.M. Van Lieshout ◽  
M.H.J. Verhofstad
2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011417S0002
Author(s):  
Andrew Matson ◽  
Stephen Barchick ◽  
Samuel Adams

Category: Ankle, Trauma Introduction/Purpose: Open approaches are often used for the operative treatment of medial malleolar (MM) fractures. Compared to percutaneous approaches, open approaches may entail an increased risk of operative morbidity, postoperative pain, wound complications, and reoperation for hardware removal. However, inherent to minimally invasive or percutaneous techniques is incomplete fracture visualizationwhich may hinder acceptable reduction. In this study, we aimed to compare patients treated with closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF) to those patients treated with traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). We hypothesized that the two groups would be similar with regard to patient factors, injury variables, and outcomes. Methods: The study group consisted of 184 consecutive patients who met inclusion criteria and were treated with operative fixation of a MM fracture from 2011-2015 at a single institution. Forty underwent CRPF and 144 underwent ORIF. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, treatment methods, and outcome variables were recorded through review of patient charts, radiographs, and operative reports. Results: Patient variables were similar between groups except for years of age, which was greater on average in the CRPF group (55 vs. 48, p = 0.03). The CRPF treatment group had a higher rate of initial open injury (22% vs. 7%, p<0.01), a lower rate of MM fracture comminution (12% vs. 29%, p = 0.03), and a higher rate of provisional external fixation (35% vs. 14%, p<0.01). There was no statistically significant difference observed between the CRPF and ORIF groups with regard to outcomes including: nonunion (2% vs. 3%), malunion (10% vs. 5%), time to union (10 weeks, each), removal of hardware (8% vs. 14%), or wound complications (0% vs. 4%). Conclusion: Both CRPF and ORIF resulted in acceptable radiographic outcomes and low complication rates for the treatment of MM fractures. Compared to the ORIF group, patients in the CRPF group on average were older and more often had comminution, open fractures, and provisional external fixation.


Author(s):  
Abdullah A. Ghaddaf ◽  
Ahmed S. Abdulhamid ◽  
Mohammed S. Alomari ◽  
Mohammed S. Alquhaibi ◽  
Abdulaziz A. Alshehri ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document