Should all Small Shell Posterior Malleolar Fractures be Considered for Fixation? Results from a 3D Fracture Mapping Study

Category: Ankle; Trauma Introduction/Purpose: Approximately 10-15% of posterior malleolar fractures (PMFs) are "small shell," extra-articular fragments. Current classification systems present difficulties to perform a uniform typification of PMFs and contain no consensus on whether they should be fixed. Anatomical studies have identified two distinct components of the posterior inferior tibiofibular ligament (PITFL); the superficial band is thought to be more important than its deep counterpart in imparting syndesmotic stability. However, the involvement of one or both bands of the PITFL by small shell PMFs has not been evaluated so far. Hence, we conducted this study to perform 3D mapping of small shell PMFs and to determine whether surgeons should fix these routinely. Methods: Ankle fracture patients with a ‘small shell’ PMF (Haraguchi 3/Mason 1/Bartoníček 1 or 2) were included. Demographics, radiological features, treatment, and outcomes were recorded. 3D models of the fractured tibiae were generated from CT scans and superimposed on a statistical shape model of the right tibia, which served as a template. Fracture lines along with footprints of superficial and deep PITFL were marked on the template. 3D fracture heat maps were generated. Size of the fracture fragments and involvement of the superficial and deep PITFL footprints were quantified using a custom MATLAB script (Figure 1). Sparing of the footprint was defined as an overlap of < 1% between the fracture line and the footprint areas. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined to determine which variables correlated with sparing of the PITFL footprint; P-values of < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Thirty-nine patients were included. The superficial PITFL footprint was spared in 15 (38%), deep PITFL in 10 (26%), and both in 4 cases (10%). Males and Weber C fractures had a higher likelihood of sparing the superficial and deep PITFL footprints, respectively (P = 0.04). Supination external rotation (SER) patterns were less likely to demonstrate syndesmotic widening if either PITFL footprint was spared. Direct fixation of the PMF was done in 1 case; syndesmotic fixation in 25 cases and in 14 cases, no syndesmotic fixation was done. Of these, 11 were SER injuries where stability was achieved after fixation of medial and lateral malleoli. In 1 SER and pronation external rotation (PER) injury case, the syndesmosis was stable after fixation of a large Chaput fragment. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that 48% of small shell PMFs spare either the superficial or deep footprint of the PITFL; in 10% both PITFL footprints were spared. Hence, 58 % of small-shell PMFs may not benefit from direct fixation. Additionally, SER injuries with small shell PMFs that spare either PITFL footprint may not demonstrate radiographic instability and may not need direct or indirect fixation after addressing other components of the ankle fracture. However, given the fact that syndesmotic stability is not dictated by the PITFL alone, it remains prudent to stress the syndesmosis per-operatively to determine if syndesmotic fixation is needed