ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025
Fibula fixation is not associated with a higher rate of wound complications during pilon fracture open reduction internal fixation.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Management of a Pilon Fracture Complicated by Drug-induced Hypersensitivity Syndrome, Fungal Infection and Limb Length Discrepancy: A Case Report.Strategies in trauma and limb reconstructionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There is a lack of consensus regarding indications for fibula fixation in pilon fractures. Reduction of the fibula fracture can assist with restoring lateral column length and reduction of the tibial plafond during pilon ORIF. However, there are theoretical concerns with wound complications and soft tissue insult. The purpose of this study is to compare short-term outcome measures after tibial plafond ORIF with and without supplemental fibula fixation using a validated national database. Materials and methods: The American College of Surgeons' NSQIP database was utilized to identify all patients undergoing tibial plafond ORIF with and without fibula fixation between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020 using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 27827 and 27828, respectively. Open fractures and cases with concurrent open procedures were excluded from analysis. Demographic data, medical comorbidities, surgical variables, and various 30-day outcome measures were compared between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent variables associated with various outcome measure of interest. Results: A total of 3120 patients were included in the final cohort: 1530 patients underwent tibia fixation alone and 1590 patients underwent both tibia and fibula fixation. The supplemental fibula fixation group had a higher rate of reoperation (2.3 % vs. 1.1 %, p = 0.013) and non-home discharge (14.8 % vs. 11.2 %, p = 0.003). The rate of surgical site infection was comparable between groups. Supplemental fibula fixation was independently associated with unplanned reoperation (RR: 1.939 [1.081-3.477], p = 0.026). Conclusions: Patients undergoing supplemental fibula fixation during tibial plafond ORIF had a higher rate of 30-day reoperation and non-home discharge. Supplemental fibula fixation during pilon fracture ORIF was independently associated with a higher rate of 30-day reoperation. There was no difference in the rates of surgical site infection or wound dehiscence between the two groups. Level of evidence: 3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.