The 2-Window Posterolateral vs Single-Window Approach for Ankle Fracture Fixation.

BACKGROUND

The posterolateral approach to the ankle allows for reduction and fixation of the posterior and lateral malleoli through the same surgical incision. This can be accomplished via 1 or 2 surgical "windows." The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes including wound complications following direct fixation of unstable rotational ankle fracture through the posterolateral approach using either 1 or 2 surgical windows.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-four patients with bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures treated using the single-window posterolateral approach (between the peroneal tendons and the flexor hallucis longus [FHL]) or the 2-window technique (between the peroneal tendons and the FHL for posterior malleolus fixation; lateral to the peroneal tendons for fibula fixation) were reviewed for demographics, radiographic details, and clinical outcomes. We were able to review these 164 at the 3-month follow-up and a subset of 104 at a minimum of 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred eight ankles had the single-window approach; 56 had the 2-window approach. These 2 cohorts did not differ in demographic or injury characteristics. Ankles in the 2-window group experienced a greater number of early (3 months postsurgery) wound complications (32% vs 12%, P < .01). Two-window patients had more wound complications among ankles treated later than 1 week after injury (44% vs 16%, P < .01). There was no difference in surgical site infection, with low rates in both cohorts. Single-window patients had greater plantarflexion (35 ± 10 vs 30 ± 11 degrees, P = .025) and dorsiflexion after 12 months (21 ± 10 vs 16 ± 11 degrees, P = .021). We did not find a significant difference in nerve complications for these 2 cohorts.

CONCLUSION

In our study, we found the single-window posterolateral approach to be associated with fewer wound complications and better postoperative range of ankle motion when compared to the 2-window approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.