Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Introduction
Dislocated or unstable ankle fractures are generally treated
with surgical anatomical reduction and internal fixation. The main
rationale behind this treatment is the avoidance of secondary
dislocation, leading to mal- and non-union. Mal-union is probably
the most important factor in the development of posttraumatic
osteoarthritis. The aim of this literature review was to clarify the
role of fracture type, fracture mechanism, fracture severity, initial
cartilage damage and hindfoot alignment on the development of
posttraumatic osteoarthritis. Our objective was to systematically
review the highest level of available evidence on the long-term
outcome (more than 4 years of follow-up) after operatively treated
ankle fractures in the English, German and Dutch literature.
Materials and methods
Data sources
A search term with Boolean operators (assessment OR
evaluation OR follow-up OR long-term*) AND (surgery OR surgical*
OR operativ*) AND (ankle fracture* OR malleol* fracture*) was
constructed. The search was limited to humans and adults and the
following databases were searched from 1966 to 2008 to identify
studies relating to functional outcome, subjective (patient-
centred) outcome and radiographic evaluation at least (a follow-
up group mean of) 4 years after an operatively treated ankle
fracture. The computerised databases were searched of:
1.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Clinical
Trial Register (3rd Quarter 2008): two results in ‘economic
evaluations’. None of them relevant.
2.
Pubmed MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2008): 340 papers
found of which 42 potentially relevant.
3.
EMBASE (January 1974 to August 2008): 349 papers found of
which 35 potentially relevant, these were identical to the papers
found in MEDLINE.
4.
Orthopaedic Trauma Association annual meetings’ abstracts
archives website (January 1996 to August 2008): 0 papers found
using our search term.
The search of the literature performed in this study was
according to the Quorom
1
statement and limited to published
original clinical studies including operatively treated ankle
fractures (AO/OTA type 44 A–C). Only studies with a minimum
of eight patients were included. Stress fractures, paediatric
fractures, pathologic fractures, open fractures, and distal tibia
fractures (AO/OTA type 43 A–C) were excluded. Articles that
reported mixed series of ankle fractures and pilon fractures were
only included if the data of the ankle fractures could be extracted
separately. Articles that reported conservative treatment of ankle
fractures were excluded. Article reporting mixed series of
conservative and operative treatment were included if the
surgically treated fractures could be extracted separately.
Mal-union is thought to be the most important factor
determining the long-term outcome after ankle fracture; the
definition of mal-union was documented for each article. The rate
of mal-union according to the authors’ definition was extracted
from each article.
The lists of references of retrieved publications were manually
checked for additional studies potentially meeting the inclusion
criteria and not found by the electronic search. The search was
restricted to articles written in the English, German and Dutch
language. Case reports, descriptions of surgical techniques and
abstracts from scientific meetings were excluded.
Study selection
From the literature search the title and abstract of potentially
relevant articles were assessed. The full article was retrieved when
the title or abstract revealed insufficient information to determine
appropriateness for inclusion. All identified studies were assessed
independently by two authors (S.S. and M.B.) for inclusion using
the mentioned criteria. Disagreement was resolved by group
discussion with arbitration by a third author (G.K.) where
differences remained. Of the 42 initially relevant papers, 18 met
our inclusion criteria.
1–8,10,11,13,15–21
Data extraction
The data from the included studies were extracted by one
author (S.S.), and were verified by a second author (M.B.).
Disagreement was resolved in a consensus meeting or by third
party adjudication (G.K.) when necessary. Studies were not blinded
for author, affiliation and source.
9,12,14
No authors were contacted
in order to complete the required data and for further information
on methodology. Relevant information regarding the level of
evidence, mean years of follow-up, number of patients included
and number available for follow-up, fracture type, associated
ligamentary injuries, and the previously mentioned outcome
measures were extracted. Methodological quality of included
studies was assessed by assigning Levels of Evidence as defined by
the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (https://www.cebm.net).
In short, for studies on therapy or prognosis, Level I is attributed to
well designed and performed randomised controlled trials, Level II
are cohort studies, Level III are case–control studies, Level IV are
case series and Level V are expert opinion articles.
Data synthesis
Based on the levels of evidence recommendations for future
research were formulated. Conclusions of this review can be used
to better inform patients about prognosis after ankle fracture. A
grade was added based on the evidence supporting that
recommendation. Grade A: treatment options or prognosis are
supported by strong evidence (consistent with Level I or II studies),
Grade B: treatment options or prognosis are supported by fair
evidence (consistent with Level III or IV studies), Grade C:
treatment options or prognosis are supported by either conflicting
or poor quality evidence (Level IV studies), and Grade D: when
insufficient evidence exists to make a recommendation.
Statistics
When pooling of the data was possible and clinically relevant,
odd-ratios (ORs) were calculated to compare the influence of
several prognostic factors (quality of the fracture reduction,
different fracture types, and presence of cartilage lesions) on
having a good to excellent long-term outcome. The software
S.A.S. Stufkens et al. / Injury, Int. J. Care Injured 42 (2011) 119–127
120