Patient Outcomes Differences Following Ankle Fracture Fixation with or without Ankle Arthroscopy

• Main Authors: Kenneth S. Smith MD, Katherine D. Drexelius, Shanthan C. Challa, Daniel K. Moon MD, MS, MBA, Joshua A. Metzl MD, Kenneth J. Hunt MD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: SAGE Publishing 2020-07-01
• Series: Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011420S00013

Category: Arthroscopy; Ankle; Trauma Introduction/Purpose: Ankle fractures are one of the most common types of fractures, yet there is currently no consensus about how best to treat these patients. The treatment approach typically includes open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF), but not all patients have a good clinical outcome. Intra-articular injuries have been suggested as one potential cause of these sub-optimal outcomes. Use of arthroscopy at the time of surgery is useful in identifying intra-articular lesions in acute ankle fractures, however, there is no evidence that arthroscopic intervention changes the patient’s outcome. Ankle arthroscopy increases the duration and potential complications of anesthesia administration and also increases cost. Our study assesses the clinical impact of arthroscopy accompanying an ankle fracture ORIF, which is essential to promote positive outcomes, while decreasing unnecessary complications and costs. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review. We queried all patients that underwent operative fixation of a bimalleolar or trimalleolar ankle fracture at our institution from January 1, 2014 through November 1, 2018. From this list, we excluded patients less than 18 years old and patients that had concomitant injuries to other body parts that required surgery. In addition, we only included Weber B and Weber C fibula fracture to homogenize the data. We then performed a chart review to extract all demographic data, fracture pattern, surgical procedures performed, tourniquet times, any revision surgeries, arthroscopic findings and any interventions performed due to the arthroscopic portion of the procedure. We then conducted a phone and email survey utilizing the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Health Short Form and the two question Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS). Results: Our study included 213 total patients (142 traditional ORIF, 71 ORIF plus arthroscopy) with an average age of 40 (standard deviation 14.2). The average follow up was 32.4 (13.1) months with a survey follow up rate of 50.7%. The demographic information between the two cohorts was statistically similar. The average tourniquet time for the arthroscopy cohort is 10 minutes longer (89 minutes versus 79 minutes). During the arthroscopy, there was a 28.2% rate of full thickness osteochondral lesions, 33.8% rate of loose bodies, and a 49.2% rate of small cartilage injury not requiring intervention. The mean PROMIS physical function score amongst Weber B fibula fractures was 45.8 and 42.3 in the arthroscopy and non-arthroscopy groups respectively (P value 0.012). In addition, the patient satisfaction rate in Weber B fibula fractures was higher in those patients that underwent arthroscopy as compared to ORIF alone (93.1% versus 75.5%, P value of 0.05). Patients that suffered a tibiotalar joint dislocation at the time of the ankle fracture had a significantly higher PROMIS physical function score (46.6 versus 40.2, P value 0.005) when their surgery included arthroscopy. Conclusion: Ankle arthroscopy at the time of ORIF led to higher mean patient reported outcomes for every tested metric but this reached statistical significance only when looking at the Weber B fibula fractures and ankle dislocations. There was no increase in complication rate and the arthroscopy took only 10 minutes longer on average.