Background: The best treatment strategy for fractures to the posterior malleolus (PM) is still intensively debated. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the patient-rated outcome following open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for fractures of the PM to either closed reduction using AP screws (CRIF) or no treatment in bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures.
Methods: Systematic literature research (MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL, Scopus, Central and EMBASE) according to the PICOS and PRISMA guidelines. Eligible were studies comparing the outcome following ORIF to any other treatment strategy for fractures to the posterior malleolus in isolated bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures.
Results: Twelve studies were eligible for a qualitative analysis and 6 for a quantitative analysis. Overall, a considerable heterogeneity among the studies was observed. The most commonly used outcome score was the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score (AOFAS). The final follow-up ranged from 12 to 160 months. Four studies compared ORIF to CRIF of the PM. The quantitative analysis revealed significantly better AOFAS scores for ORIF (90.9 vs 83.4 points; P < .001; I2 = 0%). Three studies compared ORIF to untreated PM fragment. The quantitative analysis again revealed superior AOFAS scores for ORIF (92.0 vs 82.5 points; P < .001; I2 = 99%). A similar trend was observed for the Ankle Fracture Scoring System and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Foot and Ankle Questionnaire scores as well as the quality of reduction.
Conclusion: Despite a considerable heterogeneity, the data available point to a superior outcome following ORIF for fractures to the PM when compared to CRIF or no treatment.
Keywords: ORIF; PROM; Volkmann; bimalleolar; trimalleolar.