Aims

This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the in vivo ankle kinetic alterations in patients with concomitant chronic ankle instability (CAI) and osteochondral lesion of the talus (OLT), which may offer opportunities for clinician intervention in treatment and rehabilitation.

Objectives. The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical stability and clinical outcome of external fixator combined with limited internal fixation (EFLIF) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in treating Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures. Methods. Two types of fixation systems were selected for finite element analysis and a dual cohort study. Two fixation systems were simulated to fix the fracture in a finite element model. The relative displacement and stress distribution were analysed and compared. A total of 71 consecutive patients with closed Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the treatment to which they chose: the EFLIF group and the ORIF group. The radiological and clinical outcomes were evaluated and compared. Results. The relative displacement of the EFLIF was less than that of the plate (0.1363 mm to 0.1808 mm). The highest von Mises stress value on the plate was 33% higher than that on the EFLIF. A normal restoration of the Böhler angle was achieved in both groups. No significant difference was found in the clinical outcome on the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle Hindfoot Scale, or on the Visual Analogue Scale between the two groups (p > 0.05). Wound complications were more common in those who were treated with ORIF (p = 0.028). Conclusions. Both EFLIF and ORIF systems were tested to 160 N without failure, showing the new construct to be mechanically safe to use. Both EFLIF and ORIF could be effective in treating Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures. The EFLIF may be superior to ORIF in achieving biomechanical stability and less blood loss, shorter surgical time and hospital stay, and fewer wound complications. Cite this article: M. Pan, L. Chai, F. Xue, L. Ding, G. Tang, B. Lv. Comparisons of external fixator combined with limited internal fixation and open reduction and internal fixation for Sanders type 2 calcaneal fractures: Finite element analysis and clinical outcome. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:433–438. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.2000640

The incidence of periprosthetic fractures of the ankle is increasing. However, little is known about the outcome of treatment and their management remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of periprosthetic fractures on the functional and radiological outcome of patients with a total ankle arthroplasty (TAA).

A total of 505 TAAs (488 patients) who underwent TAA were retrospectively evaluated for periprosthetic ankle fracture: these were then classified according to a recent classification which is orientated towards treatment. The outcome was evaluated clinically using the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score and a visual analogue scale for pain, and radiologically.

A total of 21 patients with a periprosthetic fracture of the ankle were identified. There were 13 women and eight men. The mean age of the patients was 63 years (48 to 74). Thus, the incidence of fracture was 4.17%.

There were 11 intra-operative and ten post-operative fractures, of which eight were stress fractures and two were traumatic. The prosthesis was stable in all patients. Five stress fractures were treated conservatively and the remaining three were treated operatively.

A total of 17 patients (81%) were examined clinically and radiologically at a mean follow-up of 53.5 months (12 to 112). The mean AOFAS score at follow-up was 79.5 (21 to 100). The mean AOFAS score in those with an intra-operative fracture was 87.6 (80 to 100) and for those with a stress fracture, which were mainly because of varus malpositioning, was 67.3 (21 to 93). Periprosthetic fractures of the ankle do not necessarily adversely affect the clinical outcome, provided that a treatment algorithm is implemented with the help of a new classification system.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:950–6.