Ten year outcomes after non-fixation of the smaller posterior malleolar fragment: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of posterior malleolar (PM) ankle fractures remains controversial. Despite increasing recommendation for small PM fragment fixation, high quality evidence demonstrating improved clinical outcomes over the unfixated PM is limited. We describe the long term clinical and radiographical outcomes in younger adult patients with PM ankle fractures managed without PM fragment fixation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on PM ankle fracture patients aged 18-55 years old admitted under our orthopaedic unit between 1st of April 2009 and 31st of October 2013. Inclusion criteria were ASA 1 and 2, independent mobility pre-trauma, no pre-existing ankle pathologies, with satisfactory bimalleolar and syndesmotic stabilisation. Open fractures, talar fractures, calcaneal fractures, pilon fractures, subsequent re-injury and major complications were excluded. All PM fragments were unfixated. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) with activities of daily living (ADL) and sports subscale for function, and patient satisfaction ratings. Osteoarthritis was assessed using modified Kellgren-Lawrence scale on follow-up weightbearing ankle radiographs. RESULTS: Sixty-one participants were included. Mean follow-up was 10.26 years. Average PM size was 16.2 ± 7.39%. All participants were evaluated for clinical outcomes. Mean score of FAAM-ADL was 95.5 ± 7.13, FAAM-Sports 86.4 ± 15.5, patient satisfaction 86.2 ± 14.4% and pain score 1.13 ± 1.65. Radiographical outcomes were evaluated in 52 participants, showing no-to-minimal osteoarthritis in 36/52 (69%), mild osteoarthritis in 14/52 (27%) and moderate osteoarthritis in 2/52 (4%). Pain and functional scores were independent of PM fragment size, post-reduction step-off, dislocation, malleoli fractured or syndesmotic injury. PM step-off more than 1 mm and traumatic dislocation/subluxation were associated with worse radiographical osteoarthritis. CONCLUSION: After controlling for confounders, the unfixated smaller posterior malleolus fragment at 10-year follow-up demonstrated largely satisfactory clinical outcomes with some radiographical progression of osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III - Retrospective cohort study.

Reliability of the Radiographic Measurement of the Hallux Interphalangeal Angle.

BACKGROUND: The hallux valgus interphalangeus (HVI) deformity has a common association with hallux valgus and hallux rigidus. The HVI is formed by the angle between the long axes of the proximal and distal phalanges. The normal value for this angular deformity in the coronal plane is less than 10°. The aim of this study was to analyze the intra- and inter-observer reliability of measuring the interphalangeal angle by orthopaedic surgeons. This study is the first study to evaluate specifically the reliability and reproducibility of measuring the HVI angle. METHODS: Twenty-one X-ray prints of weightbearing feet constituted a set. Sixteen qualified orthopaedic surgeons were asked to measure the HVI angle of all 21 X-ray images in the set. Three randomized sets were sent to each evaluator at 4-week intervals. After all 3 sets were measured, data were retrieved and statistically analyzed to determine the inter- and intraobserver variability and reliability in the measurement of the HVI angle. Reproducibility of the HVI measurement was assessed using 3 categories, which included the ability to measure the same angle 3 times and achieve: 3° or less, 5° or less, and more than 5° variation. RESULTS: The intraobserver reliability was found to be 5° or less in 85.2% of participants and the interobserver reliability was 81.2%. The researcher did not find significant correlation between the surgeons' level of experience with regard to the reliability of measuring the HVI angle. CONCLUSION: The inter- and intraobserver reliabilities of measuring the HVI angle is 81.2% and 85.2%, respectively. The level of experience of the surgeon does not improve this reliability. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level II.