Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (2011) 131:1545–1553
DOI 10.1007/s00402-011-1349-7TRAUMA SURGERY
Evidence-based treatment of open ankle fractures
Caroline C. C. Hulsker · Sanne Kleinveld · Chris B. L. Zonnenberg · Mike Hogervorst · Michel P. J. van den Bekerom
Received: 5 April 2011 / Published online: 29 June 2011© The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Fractures of the ankle are fairly common injuries.Open ankle fractures are much less common and associatedwith severe injuries to surrounding tissues. We haveperformed a systematic review of the literature concerningthe clinical results and complication rates in the treatmentof open ankle fractures. We conducted a search limited tothe following databases: Pubmed/Medline, Cochrane Data-base of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trial Regis-ter and Embase. These were searched from 1968 to April2010 to identify studies relating to the treatment of openankle fractures. Fifteen articles concerning 498 patientswith treatment of an open ankle fracture were identiWed.The number of included patients varied from 11 to 64.There were 2 prospective and 13 retrospective studies. Allarticles were case series and classiWed as Level IVevidence. In 373 cases, open ankle fractures were treated byimmediate internal Wxation. In 125 cases, a conservativetreatment or delayed/other Wxation treatment was followed.Of those patients treated by immediate internal Wxation,81% had satisfactory result. Poor results (15%) were most
commonly due to non-anatomic reductions, articularsurface damage or deep infection. When conservative treat-ment was followed, 76% had satisfactory results. The mostreported complications after immediate internal Wxationwere deep infection (8%) and skin necrosis (14%). There isa lack of high quality literature concerning the (operative)treatment of patients with open ankle fractures. Remarkableis that most authors reported satisfactory results afterperformance of their treatment protocol. Based on the avail-able literature, we formulated guidelines regarding: timingof operative treatment, wound irrigation, the role of internalWxation, wound coverage and closure, the use of antibioticsand additional therapies.
Keywords Ankle fractures · Open/complex/compound · Treatment · Osteosynthesis · Operative procedures · Antibiotics
AbbreviationsAO/ASIFArbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/
American Society for Internal FixationOTA Orthopaedic Trauma Association
Introduction
In the treatment of open fractures, the surgeon’s objectivesare to prevent infection, promote fracture healing, andrestore function without complications. [1]. A fracture isconsidered to be open when disruption of the skin andunderlying soft tissues results in a communication betweenthe fracture and the outside environment. The most com-monly used classiWcation for open fractures is the systemdeveloped by Gustilo and Anderson [2], and subsequentlymodiWed by Gustilo et al. [3] (Table 1).
C. C. C. Hulsker (&) · S. KleinveldDepartment of General Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam DD 1100, The Netherlandse-mail: [email protected]
C. B. L. ZonnenbergDepartment of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Spaarne Hospital, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
M. HogervorstDepartment of General Surgery, Gelre Hospitals, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
M. P. J. van den BekeromDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam DD 1100, The Netherlands
123
1546 Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (2011) 131:1545–1553
Two studies found the Gustilo and Anderson classiWca-tion system to be associated with low interobserver agree-ment [4, 5] In spite of these limitations, the Gustilo andAnderson classiWcation remains the preferred system forcategorizing open fractures since the fracture type corre-lates well with the risk of infection and other associatedcomplications.
Fractures of the ankle are fairly common injuries. Openankle fractures are much less common and usually causedby high-energy trauma. In most series, an incidence ofabout 5% is reported [6]. The amount of energy in the ini-tial trauma determines the type of injury and prognosis.SigniWcant bone and soft tissue loss, either from the initialinjury or subsequent debridement, can create diYculties inobtaining wound closure, joint congruity and fractureunion. It is not surprising, therefore, that these fracturesoften end in poor results.
Okike and Bhattacharyya already formulated guidelinesfor treatment of open fractures in general [1]. The objectiveof this article is to formulate guidelines for treatment ofopen ankle fractures. These guidelines are based on a sys-tematic review of the literature. The aim was to evaluate theclinical results and complication rates after diVerent (non)operative treatment protocols. Based on these results, rec-ommendations for clinical practice and future researchwere formulated. Principles for treatment of closed anklefractures are not discussed in this review.
Materials and methods
For inclusion and exclusion criteria, we refer to Fig. 1. Thefollowing search terms were used: open/compound/com-plex fractures, ankle/malleolar fractures, treatment out-come, osteosynthesis, debridement, lavage, irrigation,antibiotic treatment and operative treatment. With the helpof a clinical librarian, a search limited to adult humans wasconducted in the following databases: Pubmed/Medline,Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clin-ical Trial Register, Current Controlled Trials, OrthopedicTrauma Association (OTA) annual meetings’ abstracts
archives website and Embase. These databases weresearched from 1968 to April 2010 to identify studies relat-ing to the (non) operative treatment of open ankle fractures.Review articles and expert opinions were excluded becausethese articles do not report on new patient series. Also,reports on surgical techniques and abstracts from scientiWcmeetings were excluded. Furthermore, the lists of refer-ences of retrieved publications were manually checked foradditional studies potentially meeting the inclusion criteriaand not found by the electronic search. The search wasrestricted to articles written in the English, French, Germanand Dutch language.
The search of the literature in this study was performedaccording to the Quorom [7] statement on meta-analysesand limited to published original studies including adultpatients with (non) operative treatment of open ankle frac-tures (AO/ASIF type 44ABC).
All operative techniques and non-operative treatmentmodalities were included. The diagnosis of an open anklefracture was made based on history, physical examinationand standard radiography. Only studies with a minimum ofseven patients were included. Articles concerning the treat-ment of a distal tibial fracture or a tibial pilon fracture (AO/ASIF type 43 A, B, C) were not included. Articles concern-ing open and closed fractures were included when the openankle fractures could be analyzed separately. The Pubmedsearch strategy is shown in Table 2.
Relevant baseline measurements were: use of antibiot-ics, timing of treatment/debridement, use of irrigation, typeof Wxation, coverage and closure, and use of adjunctivetherapies. After an (non) operatively treated open anklefracture, relevant outcome measures of the included studieswere: functional outcome (diVerent scoring systems wereused in the reviewed articles), radiographic osteoarthritis,rate of non/malunion, rate of infection, performing woundculture, rate of secondary surgical interventions. The openankle fractures were classiWed according to the systemdeveloped by Gustilo and Anderson [2], and subsequentlymodiWed by Gustilo et al. [3].
A wound or deep infection is deWned as an invasion ofthe joint or the soft tissues around the joint by pathogenicmicroorganisms. The deWnition of malunion was docu-mented for each article. The rate of malunion according tothe authors’ deWnition was extracted from each article. Thenon-union rate included those fractures that developedosseous non-union after 1-year follow-up. Delayed unionswere not included in the non-union rate if the fractures sub-sequently healed. The secondary surgical procedure rateincluded any reported secondary surgical procedure relatedto the ankle fracture. This also included partial and com-plete hardware removals.
Two reviewers (CH, MB) independently reviewed theliterature searches on title and abstract to identify relevant
Table 1 ClassiWcation system of Gustilo and Anderson [3, 4]
I Wound <1 cm; minimal contamination, comminution and soft tissue damage
II Wound >1 cm; moderate soft tissue damage, minimal periosteal stripping
IIIA Severe soft tissue damage and substantial contamination;coverage adequate
IIIB Severe soft tissue damage and substantial contamination; coverage inadequate
IIIC Arterial injury requiring repair
123
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (2011) 131:1545–1553 1547
articles for full review. From the full text, using the above-mentioned criteria two reviewers (CH, MB) independentlyselected articles for inclusion in this review. Disagreementwas resolved by group discussion with arbitration by a thirdauthor (CZ) where diVerences remained.
The data from the included studies were extracted (SK)and veriWed by a second author (CZ). Disagreement was
resolved in a consensus meeting or by third party (SK)adjudication when necessary. Studies were not blinded forauthor, aYliation and source [8, 9]. If necessary, authorswere contacted to acquire further information on methodol-ogy and data.
It was the initial intention of the authors to use a strictmethodology for paper analysis, focusing on objectively
Fig. 1 Flowchart summarizing the selection of relevant articles
Search in Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trial Register, Current Controlled Trials, Orthopaedic Trauma Association
annual meetings’ abstracts archives website and Embase
622 articles
Inclusion criteria:
Patients with treatment for open ankle fractures
All articles from 1968 onwards which presented patient data concerning treatment of open ankle fractures and concerning >6 patients
The search was restricted to articles written in English, German, French and Dutch
368 articles
47 articlesExcluded articles:
Did not match the language restrictions (n=4)
Not concerning open ankle fractures (n=23)
Expert opinions / review articles (n=5)
Data extraction
Screening related articles and references.
15 articles
Table 2 Pubmed/Medline search strategy
(((((“open fracture”[tw] OR “open fractures”[tw]) OR (“Fractures, Open”[Mesh]) OR (“complex fractures”[tw] OR “complex fracture”[tw]) OR (“compound fracture”[tw] OR “compound fractures”[tw])) AND ((ankle[tw] OR ankles[tw]) OR (“Ankle”[Mesh]))) OR (((“Fractures, Bone”[Mesh:noexp]) OR (“bone fracture”[tw] OR “bone fractures”[tw])) AND (open[tw]) AND ((ankle[tw] OR ankles[tw]) OR (“Ankle”[Mesh]))) OR (((“malleolar fracture”[tw] OR “malleolar fractures”[tw]) OR (“ankle fracture”[tw] OR “ankle fractures”[tw])) AND (open[tw]))) AND ((“Treatment Failure”[Mesh]) OR (treatment[tw]) OR (“operative procedure”[tw] OR “operative procedures”[tw]) OR (“Surgical Procedures, Operative”[Mesh:noexp]) OR (“debridement”[MeSH Terms] OR “debridement”[tw]) OR (“Irrigation”[Mesh:noexp]) OR (Irrigation[tw]) OR (lavage[tw]) OR (“Anti-Bacterial Agents”[Mesh:noexp]) OR (antibiotics[tw]) OR (“Fracture Fixation, Internal”[Mesh]) OR (“internal fracture Wxation”[tw]) OR (osteosynthesis[tw])))
123
1548 Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (2011) 131:1545–1553
measurable variables, separate evaluation of diVerentDanis–Weber and Lauge–Hansen classiWcations and ran-domized controlled trials. These standards had to be aban-doned, however, as almost none of the available papersfulWlled the above-mentioned criteria and data could not bepooled.
The methodological quality of included studies wasassessed by assigning Levels of Evidence as previouslydeWned by the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine(CEBM) [8], referred to in Table 3.
Results
Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 498patients. The number of included patients varied from 11 to64. An overview of the included studies is shown inTable 4. The The publication dates span 35 years. In 1973,Paul et al. published the earliest and in 2008, Lee et al. pub-lished the most recent study. There were 2 prospectivestudies and 13 retrospective studies. All articles were caseseries and were classiWed as level IV evidence. There was awide variation in ankle fracture types from unimalleolar totrimalleolar fractures. The treatments varied from non-operative to extended debridement, irrigation, intravenousantibiotics, ORIF and delayed closure. There was a widevariation in follow-up ranging from 10 [10] to 90 [11]months. DiVerent inclusion criteria (diVerent treatment pro-tocols, trauma-to-treatment intervals and postoperativerehabilitation protocols) prohibited a statistical evaluationand comparison between the studies. Fifteen articles,concerning 498 patients with treatment of an open anklefracture, were identiWed. In 373 cases, open ankle fractureswere treated by immediate internal Wxation. In 125 cases, aconservative treatment or delayed/other Wxation treatmentwas followed. Of those patients treated by immediate inter-nal Wxation, 81% had a satisfactory result. Poor results(15%) were most commonly due to non-anatomic reduc-tions, articular surface damage or deep infection. Whenconservative treatment was followed, 76% had satisfactoryresults. DiVerent scoring systems for outcome were used bydiVerent authors; hence, we can only refer to outcomes as“good”, “satisfactory” or “poor”. The most reported
complications after immediate internal Wxation were deepinfection (8%) and skin necrosis (14%).
Discussion
The complexity of open ankle fractures warrants treatmentby surgeons who are experienced in this Weld and have theability to collaborate with other surgical disciplines toobtain the best possible treatment [12]. In accordance withthe British guidelines, we advised that if this experiencewas not available, prompt referral was advised. Provisionalstabilization with an external Wxator is the optimal treat-ment of damage control before referral to another moreexperienced surgeon [12].
Heterogeneity of data made it impossible to carry outpooling of results. Furthermore, diVerent scoring systemsfor functional outcome were used, which made quantitativeanalysis of functional outcomes impossible.
Timing of operative treatment
Emergency operative treatment has long been the standardof care for open fractures. The origin of the so-called “six-hour rule” is unclear; it is probably based on old studies.
Based on the available evidence it is not possible toreject or conWrm this rule because there are studies in favorof and against this “golden” rule. Some authors suggest thatoperative debridement might not be necessary for low-grade open fractures [13–15]. Poor functional results seemto be associated with inability to achieve anatomical reduc-tion and postoperative loss of reduction of the ankle frac-ture rather than delayed operative treatment [16, 17]. In ourreview, the timing of operative treatment ranged from 2 to19 h. Most of the studies do not report on timing of opera-tive treatment with respect to infection rates, but there is atrend that type of soft tissue damage (high-energy injuries,crush-type soft tissue injury around the ankle, grade IIIopen injuries) is the determinant of postoperative complica-tions as opposed to timing of treatment [16, 17] as long asthis is within 24 h (Grade C) (Table 5).
Wound irrigation
Irrigation is a key component of the eVort to prevent infec-tion after open fracture, as it serves to decrease bacterialload and to remove foreign bodies. Although many guide-lines call for “copious” amounts of irrigation, there are littledata on exactly how much volume should be used in thelavage of open fracture wounds. With regard to the deliveryof irrigation, high-pressure pulsatile lavage is most eVectivefor the removal of bacteria and other contaminants. There isincreasing evidence from animal and in vitro studies that
Table 3 Level of evidence
Level I: high-quality prospective randomized clinical trial
Level II: prospective comparative study
Level III: retrospective case control study
Level IV: case series
Level V: expert opinion
123
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (2011) 131:1545–1553 1549
Tab
le4
Ove
rvie
w o
f st
udie
s
Lev
el o
f ev
iden
ceSt
udy
type
Num
ber
of p
atie
nts
Typ
e of
fra
ctur
eG
usti
llo
clas
siW
cati
onT
reat
men
t pro
toco
lF
ollo
w-u
pR
esul
tsC
ompl
icat
ion
Ace
llo
[34]
III
Ret
rosp
ecti
ve33
Foo
t: N
=26
I: 8
II:
7 I
II: 8
Deb
ride
men
t, ir
riga
tion
, A
B, i
mm
edia
te
OR
IF/a
mpu
tati
on,
dela
yed
clos
ure
Infe
ctio
n: N
=2
Ank
le: N
=7
Bra
y [1
1]II
IR
etro
spec
tive
31U
nim
alle
olar
: N
=13
I: 1
2 II
: 9II
I: 1
0G
roup
I (
’73–
’79)
: deb
ride
men
t, cl
osed
red
ucti
on, i
mm
obil
izat
ion
or
dela
yed
OR
IF, d
elay
ed c
losu
re.
Gro
up I
I(’7
9–’8
4) :
debr
idem
ent,
irri
gati
on, A
B, i
mm
edia
te O
RIF
, de
laye
d pr
imar
y cl
osur
e
I: 9
0m
onth
s II
: 33
mon
ths
LT
FU
: 1
Pain
/fun
ctio
n of
bo
th g
roup
s ar
e sa
me.
Gro
up I
I:
bett
er R
OM
Bot
h gr
oups
, on
e in
fect
ion
Bim
alle
olar
: N
=12
Tri
mal
leol
ar:
N=
6
Fran
klin
[24
]II
IR
etro
spec
tive
38U
nim
alle
olar
: 8I:
12
II:
14 I
II: 1
6D
ebri
dem
ent,
irri
gati
on, A
B,
imm
edia
te O
RIF
, del
ayed
pr
imar
y cl
osur
e, N
WB
6w
eeks
39m
onth
s L
TF
U: 3
Func
tion
: E
xcel
lent
, 26;
fa
ir/p
oor:
9
Dee
p in
f: 1
: Sup
.in
f: 5
, Pos
ttr.
ar
thr.
13.
B
KA
:1 D
el.
unio
n: 2
Bim
alle
olar
: 24
Tri
mal
leol
ar: 8
Pil
on: 2
Jacq
ue-M
aire
[3
9]II
IR
etro
spec
tive
26B
imal
leol
ar: 2
6;
of w
hich
11
wer
e lu
xati
on f
ract
ures
I: 5
II:
16
III:
5I:
deb
ride
men
t, cl
osed
red
ucti
on
imm
obil
izat
ion
Goo
d: 1
7,
aver
age/
bad:
9P
ostt
r. A
rthr
.:1
Sept
ic a
rthr
: 1,
Pseu
doar
thro
sis:
5II
: deb
ride
men
t and
imm
edia
te O
RIF
John
son
[16]
III
Ret
rosp
ecti
ve22
Uni
mal
leol
ar: 6
I: 6
II:
15
III:
1D
ebri
dem
ent,
irri
gati
on,
AB
, im
med
iate
OR
IF32
mon
ths;
L
TF
U: 1
3C
lini
cal r
esul
t:S
up. i
nfec
tion
: 2
Bim
alle
olar
:8E
xcel
lent
: 14
Syno
stos
is: 1
Tri
mal
leol
ar:8
Goo
d: 5
Los
s of
red
: 1
Poo
r: 3
Josh
i [13
]II
IPr
ospe
ctiv
e30
I:11
II:
12 I
IIA
: 5,
B:2
Deb
ride
men
t, ir
riga
tion
, AB
, im
med
iate
OR
IF, s
oft t
issu
e m
anag
emen
t acc
ordi
ng to
fr
actu
re g
rade
Func
tion
al
(Ket
enji
an):
E
xcel
lent
22
Goo
d 8
Fai
r: 2
Sup
infe
ctio
n: 4
;
Los
s of
red
ucti
on: 2
Kha
n [1
0]II
IR
etro
spec
tive
24G
roup
P: W
x ex
, sof
t tis
sue
tran
sfer
aft
er r
adic
al d
ebri
dem
ent
P: 1
0.5
m S
: 11
.4m
Enn
ekin
g sc
ore:
P
: 74.
6 S
: 70.
4B
KA
: 2 (
one
prim
ary
trea
tmen
t)
Tim
e to
uni
on: P
: 17
w S
: 21.
6 w
Del
ayed
he
alin
g/he
mat
oma
Xap
: 2G
roup
S (
refe
rral
s): W
x ex
or
Iliz
arov
, rem
oval
of
infe
cted
m
etal
wor
k w
hen
nece
ssar
y,
soft
tiss
ue tr
ansf
er
Lee
200
8II
IR
etro
spec
tive
47A
O ty
pe B
2I:
26
II: 2
1 II
I:
excl
.D
ebri
dem
ent,
irri
gati
on, A
B,
imm
edia
te O
RIF
, pr
imar
y w
ound
clo
sure
29m
onth
s L
TF
U 4
Bai
rd&
Jac
kson
an
kle
scor
e:
exce
llen
t/go
od:
90%
Sup.
infe
ctio
n: 2
Skin
nec
rosi
s: 2
Ngc
elw
ane
[26]
III
Ret
rosp
ecti
ve64
Web
er A
: 7
B: 2
6 C
: 24
oth
er:8
Cle
an: 4
2D
ebri
dem
ent,
irri
gati
on, A
B,
imm
edia
te O
RIF
: 27
AO
, 26
K w
ires
+pl
aste
r, 1
1 pl
aste
r on
ly
23 n
o pa
inSu
p in
fect
ion:
23
Con
tam
: 22
21 p
ain
on W
BD
eep
inf/
seps
is: 9
123
1550 Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (2011) 131:1545–1553
Tab
le4
cont
inue
d
Lev
el o
f ev
iden
ceS
tudy
type
Num
ber
of p
atie
nts
Typ
e of
fra
ctur
eG
usti
llo
clas
siW
cati
onT
reat
men
t pro
toco
lF
ollo
w-u
pR
esul
tsC
ompl
icat
ion
Nor
din
1988
III
Ret
rosp
ecti
ve35
Bim
alle
olar
: 10
I:3
II:4
III
:4 2
0 no
t ope
n 4
not c
lass
iWed
Fix
ex
Goo
d 3
Sup
infe
ctio
ns:
5 D
eep
infe
ctio
ns: 3
Fai
r: 3
Pilo
n: 2
5P
oor:
9C
RP
S: 4
Pse
udoa
rthr
osis
: 1
Art
hrod
esis
: 4
Pau
l [30
]II
IR
etro
spec
tive
32U
nim
alle
olar
: 6I
: Con
serv
ativ
e tr
eatm
ent:
15
II:
OR
IF 1
1I:
Dee
p in
fect
ions
: 4
Am
puta
tion
; 1
Pse
udoa
rthr
osis
:3
Pos
ttra
um a
rthr
: 10
Ank
ylos
is: 2
II:
sk
inne
cros
is:1
P
ostt
raum
atic
ar
thri
tis:
5
Lux
atio
n fr
actu
re: 2
6
San
ders
[29
]II
IR
etro
spec
tive
11 (
4 ch
roni
c O
M r
efer
rals
)A
nkle
type
3B
: 8II
I B
: 11
Mul
tipl
e de
brid
emen
ts, r
emov
al o
f pr
e-ex
isti
ng im
plan
ts, A
B (
IV a
nd
bead
s), t
empo
rary
Wxa
tion
wit
h W
x ex
or
post
erio
r sp
lint
. Del
ayed
wou
nd
clos
ure
wit
h deW
niti
ve b
ony
stab
iliz
atio
n (a
nkle
fus
ion/
anky
losi
s) in
clud
ing
bone
gr
aft,
in c
ase
of X
ap 4
–6w
eeks
aft
er
Xap
tran
sfer
. NW
B 3
mon
ths
48m
onth
sM
azur
ank
le
fusi
on s
core
:Su
p. in
fect
ion:
1
No
subs
eque
nt
infe
ctio
nT
alus
type
3B
: 3G
ood:
3
Poo
r:5
Fail
ure:
3
Tho
[36
]II
IR
etro
spec
tive
15W
eber
B: 7
IIIA
: 14
Deb
ride
men
t, ir
riga
tion
, AB
, im
med
iate
O
RIF
, del
ayed
clo
sure
/SS
G/X
ap/b
y se
c.In
tent
ion.
6–1
2w
eeks
cas
t NW
B
1–3
year
sR
OM
: goo
d:7
Sup.
infe
ctio
n:
3 D
eep
III
B: 1
Web
er C
: 8S
atis
fact
ory:
6In
fect
ion:
3
- >
arth
rode
sis
Poo
r:2
Ost
eoar
thri
tis:
7
Whi
te [
17]
III
Ret
rosp
ecti
ve14
(al
l dia
bete
s)U
nim
alle
olar
:1I:
1D
ebri
dem
ent,
irri
gati
on, A
B, I
mm
edia
te
OR
IF/W
x ex
. 1 c
ast,
2 am
puta
tion
s.
Del
ayed
clo
sure
/SS
G/X
aps
19m
onth
s L
TFU
Sup.
Inf
ecti
on: 2
II: 5
IIIA
: 4
IIIB
: 4B
imal
leol
ar:4
0D
eep
infe
ctio
n:5
- >
3 B
KA
N
on u
nion
s: 2
Tri
mal
leol
ar: 4
Pilo
n: 5
Wis
s 19
89II
IPr
ospe
ctiv
e76
Web
er A
: 9I:
11
Deb
ride
men
t, ir
riga
tion
, AB
, im
med
iate
O
RIF
. Gus
till
o I
en I
I se
cond
ary
inte
ntio
n. I
II r
edeb
ride
men
tde
laye
d pr
imar
y or
par
tial
ly
clos
ed a
nd p
arti
ally
by
sec
inte
ntio
n
16.4
mon
ths
LT
FU
5E
xcel
lent
25
Dee
p in
fect
ion
3 A
rthr
odes
is 5
Art
hrit
is 1
2 D
elay
ed
heal
ing
5
II: 2
3
Web
er B
: 26
III:
28
Goo
d:25
Fai
r 5
Poor
12
Web
er C
: 20
Oth
er :7
123
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (2011) 131:1545–1553 1551
high-pressure pulsatile lavage may have deleterious sideeVects [11, 18–21]. These eVects include more macroscopicbone damage, reduced mechanical strength at short-termfollow-up and increased depth of bacterial penetration intomuscle [11, 18–21]. However, there is no clear clinical evi-dence in favor of high- or low-pressure pulsatile lavage.Okike and Bhattacharyya concluded that it was not possibleto recommend any particular additive for the irrigation ofopen fracture wounds [1].
Role of Wxation
Fixation of open fractures has a number of beneWcialeVects, including protection of soft tissues from additionalinjury by fracture fragments, improvement of wound careand tissue healing, promotion of early mobilization andrehabilitation, and possibly even reduction of the risk ofinfection [22]. The mode of Wxation of open fractures hashistorically been a topic of debate. In our review, immedi-ate open reduction and rigid internal Wxation of open anklefractures is safe and leads to good functional outcome(Grade C). It leads to shorter hospital stay and less jointstiVness when compared with conservative or delayed Wxa-tion [11]. Isolated medial malleolar fractures can be Wxedby a single screw or without screw Wxation [12, 23]. Evenin grade III open ankle fractures, rigid internal Wxation isassociated with good outcome. Fibular plating is not neces-sary at index surgery when the ankle is stabilized by exter-nal Wxation [23]. Deep infection leads to poor outcome and,in one study, all cases with deep infection required anklearthrodesis [17]. Deep infection should be avoided by pre-serving the soft tissues surrounding the fracture site by lav-age, debridements (repeated on demand) and earlyadministration of antibiotics [13, 19]. Only when there isinadequate soft tissue to cover osteosynthesis materials,external Wxation should be considered [17]. Poor outcomeis not only caused by deep infection. A large amount ofbone loss and articular cartilage damage caused by theinjury, inability to achieve articular reduction at operationand postoperative loss of anatomical reduction are associated
with painful secondary osteoarthritis [16, 17, 24]. It isimperative to achieve a congruous ankle mortise to preventearly degenerative ankle joint changes [17, 25], and failureto achieve rigid Wxation may even lead to higher deepinfection rates [26].
Wound coverage and closure
An anterior soft tissue defect resulting from direct injury ofhyper-plantar Xexion of the ankle can be associated withinjury of anterior tibial vessels and disruption of the exten-sor tendons [12]. Reconstruction of the tendons by interpo-sition grafts or tenodesis, and the extensor retinaculum isadvised [12]. Previously, the closure of wounds of openfractures were delayed to prevent infection with contami-nating organisms. This strategy remains the generallyaccepted approach in settings characterized by substantialcontamination. Today, many orthopedic surgeons considerearlier closure of open fracture wounds that have been ade-quately debrided. The trend toward early closure of openfractures conXicts with recommendations for routinedebridement of open fractures [27]. There are a number ofmethods for achieving closure, including direct suturing,split skin grafting and the use of free or local muscle Xaps.The optimal method depends on a number of factors,including the location of the defect, its size, associated inju-ries and patient characteristics such as the amount of func-tion retained and the desired level of function [1].
There is no consensus on the treatment of Grade I and IIopen wounds. Whereas most authors advocate delayed pri-mary closure for most Grade I and II open wounds, somereport leaving these to heal by secondary intention [13, 25]or to close Grade I wounds primarily as long as tension ofthe wound edges is avoided [6]. Some studies do not reporton closure technique after managing an open ankle fractureat all [11, 26, 28, 29]. Most authors have chosen to mentionGustilo grade rather than closure technique when discuss-ing cases of infection, which makes it diYcult to correlateinfection with closure technique. Consensus is that allgross contamination should be cleaned in the emergencydepartment, after which grade I and II open wounds can beleft to heal by secondary intention or delayed primaryclosure (Grade C).
Managing grade III open ankle fractures remains a chal-lenging task. Infection is a major threat to successful treat-ment. Soft tissue coverage of the ankle is limited due to thelack of muscle around it. Free Xaps are the only option forcovering large defects around the ankle [17]. Primary clo-sure of grade III open ankle fractures is discouraged (gradeC). Early institution of surgical debridement and antibioticsseems key to successful management of grade III anklefractures, followed by delayed closure after 2–5 days whensigns of infection are absent. When this is not possible, split
Table 5 Grades of recommendation (given to various treatmentoptions based on the level of evidence supporting that treatment)
Grade A: treatment options are supported by strong evidence (consistent with level I or II studies)
Grade B: treatment options are supported by fair evidence (consistent with level III or IV studies)
Grade C: treatment options are supported by either conXicting or poor-quality evidence (level IV studies)
Grade D: when insuYcient evidence exists to make a recommendation
123
1552 Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (2011) 131:1545–1553
skin grafts can be used to cover skin defects on well-vascu-larised beds and free Xaps to cover larger defects [17, 24](grade C).
Use of antibiotics
Antibiotic use has been considered the standard of caresince 1974, when Patzakis et al. reported their results ofthe eVect of a Wrst-generation cephalosporin for the man-agement of open fractures [30]. The beneWt of antibioticswas conWrmed by a recent Cochrane systematic review[31], which showed that the administration of antibioticsafter an open fracture reduced the risk of infection by 59%(relative risk, 0.41; 95% conWdence interval, 0.27–0.63).Okike and Bhattacharyya do not recommend the routineuse of cultures either before or after debridement becausethe organisms that are found to be contaminating an openfracture on presentation do not represent the microbes thatwill eventually cause infection [32]. While there is ampledata supporting the administration of antibiotics after openfracture, evidence indicating an optimal regimen is lacking[32]. There is agreement that a Wrst-generation cephalo-sporin should be administered in patients with open frac-tures [6, 15]. Local antibiotic therapy is a useful adjunct tosystemic antibiotics in the management of open fractures[32]. Whether this applies to the treatment of open anklefractures could not be evinced from the articles in thisreview.
Timing of antibiotic administration plays an importantrole. The rate of infection increases when antibiotics arecommenced more than 3 h post-injury [33].
The duration of antibiotic treatment diVered greatly inthe studies of our review, ranging from 24 to 48 h [9, 16,24, 28], 3 days [26, 34, 35] to 5–7 days [13, 36]. One authoradvocates administering antibiotics until discharge fromhospital [29]. It is not possible to extract data which allow acorrelation between postoperative infection and duration ofantibiotic treatment.
Additional therapies
Non-unions of ankle fractures are rare [37], so adjunctivetherapy such as bone grafting as used in tibia and femurfractures is not beneWcial. The use of tourniquets duringoperation is discouraged [34], but no Wrm evidence is avail-able to support this.
Conclusion
There is a lack of high-quality literature concerning the(operative) treatment of patients with open ankle fractures.Most authors reported good results after performance of
their treatment protocol. On basis of the existing literature,we come to the following guidelines.
• All gross debris and contamination should be removed inthe emergency department (Grade C).
• Cephalosporins should be administered in the emergencydepartment without delay. It is not imperative thatwound swabs be taken before administering antibioticsas initial swabs taken do not represent the microbes thateventually cause infection.
• There is no evidence regarding the optimal duration ofantibiotic treatment.
• Patients should be taken to the theater within 24 h (GradeC).
• After thorough debridement of all devitalized tissues,irrigation of the wound should be carried out with cau-tion as this may also have deleterious eVects on bone andhealthy soft tissue (Grade C).
• There is no Wrm evidence against the use of tourniquets(Grade C).
• Rigid internal Wxation should be carried out with the aimof restoring anatomy of the ankle mortise and preventinglong-term secondary degenerative changes resulting inpain and stiVness. Only when there is inadequate soft tis-sue to cover osteosynthesis materials, external Wxationshould be considered (Grade C).
• Grade I wounds may be closed, primarily if the wound isnot under tension, or left open to heal by secondaryintention (Grade C).
• Grade II wounds should be left to heal by secondaryintention, or be closed primarily at a later time after post-operative infection has been ruled out (Grade C).
• Grade III open ankle injuries should be left open andmanaged postoperatively by the use of skin grafts or XeeXaps (Grade C).
Future studies should focus on the choice and duration ofantibiotic treatment, the amount and intensity of irrigationof soft tissues around the ankle and the type of irrigationsolution to be used.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Albertine van Hors-sen for her help with the systematic search and collecting the requiredarticles. The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants insupport of their research or for preparation of this work. Neither theynor a member of their immediate families received payments or otherbeneWts, or a commitment or agreement to provide such beneWts froma commercial entity. Non-commercial entity paid or directed, or agreedto pay or direct, any beneWts to any research fund, foundation, division,center, clinical practice or other charitable or nonproWt organizations,with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families areaYliated or associated.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Cre-ative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permitsany noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
123
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg (2011) 131:1545–1553 1553
References
1. Olerud S, Karlstrom G, Danckwardt-Lilliestrom G (1978) Treat-ment of open fractures of the tibia and ankle. Clin Orthop RelatRes (136):212–224
2. Gustilo RB, Anderson JT (1976) Prevention of infection in thetreatment of one thousand and twenty-Wve open fractures of longbones: retrospective and prospective analyses. J Bone Joint SurgAm 58:453–458
3. Gustilo RB, Mendoza RM, Williams DN (1984) Problems in themanagement of type III (severe) open fractures: a new classiWca-tion of type III open fractures. J Trauma 24:742–746
4. Brumback RJ, Jones AL (1994) Interobserver agreement in theclassiWcation of open fractures of the tibia. The results of a surveyof two hundred and forty-Wve orthopaedic surgeons. J Bone JointSurg Am 76:1162–1166
5. Horn BD, Rettig ME (1993) Interobserver reliability in the Gustiloand Anderson classiWcation of open fractures. J Orthop Trauma7:357–360
6. Olson SA, Finkemeier CG, Moehring ND (2001) Open fractures.In: Bucholz RW, Heckman JD (eds) Rockwood and Greene’sfractures in adults, 5th edn. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins,Philadelphia, pp 285–318
7. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF(1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses ofrandomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality ofreporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 27, 354(9193):1896–1900
8. Jadad AR, Moore A, Carroll D et al (1996) Assessing the qualityof reports of randomised controlled trials: is blinding necessary?Contr Clin Trials 17:1–12
9. Stiehl JB (1990) Open fractures of the ankle joint. Instr CourseLect 39:113–117
10. Khan U, Smitham P, Pearse M, Nanchahal J (2007) Managementof severe open ankle injuries. Plast Reconstr Surg 119(2):578–589
11. Bray TJ, Endicott M, Capra SE (1989) Treatment of open anklefractures. Immediate internal Wxation versus closed immobiliza-tion and delayed Wxation. Clin Orthop Relat Res (240):47–52
12. Herscovici D Jr, Scaduto JM, Infante A (2007) Conservative treat-ment of isolated fractures of the medial malleolus. J Bone JointSurg Br 89(1):89–93
13. Joshi D, Singh D, Ansari J, Lal Y (2006) Immediate open reduc-tion and internal Wxation in open ankle fractures. J Am PodiatrMed Assoc 96(2):120–124
14. Patrick JH, Smelt GJ (1977) Surgical progress—100 years ago. Anassessment of Listerism at St Thomas’s Hospital, London. Ann RColl Surg Engl 59:456–462
15. Zalavras CG, Patzakis MJ, Holtom PD, Sherman R (2005) Man-agement of open fractures. Infect Dis Clin North Am 19:915–929
16. Johnson EE, Davlin LB (1993) Open ankle fractures. The indica-tions for immediate open reduction and internal Wxation. Clin Ort-hop Relat Res (292):118–127
17. White CB, Turner NS, Lee GC, Haidukewych GJ (2003) Openankle fractures in patients with diabetes mellitus. Clin OrthopRelat Res (414):37–44
18. Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH, Adili A, Lachowski RJ, Shaugh-nessy SG (1999) High and low pressure pulsatile lavage ofcontaminated tibial fractures: an in vitro study of bacterial adher-ence and bone damage. J Orthop Trauma 13:526–533
19. Boyd JI III, Wongworawat MD (2004) High-pressure pulsatilelavage causes soft tissue damage. Clin Orthop Relat Res427:13–17
20. Dirschl DR, DuV GP, Dahners LE, Edin M, Rahn BA, Miclau T(1998) High pressure pulsatile lavage irrigation of intraarticularfractures: eVects on fracture healing. J Orthop Trauma 12:460–463
21. Hassinger SM, Harding G, Wongworawat MD (2005) High-pressure pulsatile lavage propagates bacteria into soft tissue. ClinOrthop Relat Res 439:27–31
22. Yang EC, Eisler J (2003) Treatment of isolated type I openfractures: is emergent operative debridement necessary? ClinOrthop Relat Res 410:289–294
23. British orthopaedic Association and British Association of Plastic,Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons Standard for Trauma(2009) The management of severe open lower limb fractures.Chapter 15: Open fractures of foot and ankle
24. Franklin JL, Johnson KD, Hansen ST Jr (1984) Immediate internalWxation of open ankle fractures. Report of thirty-eight casestreated with a standard protocol. J Bone Joint Surg Am66(9):1349–1356
25. Worlock P, Slack R, Harvey L, Mawhinney R (1994) The preven-tion of infection in open fractures: an experimental study of theeVect of fracture stability. Injury 25:31–38
26. Ngcelwane MV (1990) Management of open fractures of the anklejoint. Injury 21(2):93–96
27. Orcutt S, Kilgus D, Ziner D (1988) The treatment of low-gradeopen fractures without operative debridement. Read at the AnnualMeeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, Dallas, TX, USA
28. Lee YS, Chen SW (2009) Lateral Wxation of open AO type-B2ankle fractures: the Knowles pin versus plate. Int Orthop33(4):1135–1139
29. Sanders R, Pappas J, Mast J, Helfet D (1992) The salvage of opengrade IIIB ankle and talus fractures. J Orthop Trauma 6(2):201–208
30. Paul D (1973) Conservative and surgical therapy of open malleolarfractures. Zentralbl Chir 2, 98(44):1589–1593
31. Gosselin RA, Roberts I, Gillespie WJ (2004) Antibiotics forpreventing infection in open limb fractures. Cochrane DatabaseSyst Rev 1:CD003764
32. Okike K, Bhattacharyya T (2006) Trends in the management ofopen fractures. A critical analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am88(12):2739–2748
33. Patzakis MJ, Harvey JP Jr, Ivler D (1974) The role of antibioticsin the management of open fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am56:532–541
34. Acello AN, Wallace GF, Pachuda NM (1995) Treatment of openfractures of the foot and ankle: a preliminary report. J Foot AnkleSurg 34(4):329–346
35. Wiss DA, Gilbert P, Merritt PO, Sarmiento A (1988) Immediateinternal Wxation of open ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma2(4):265–271
36. Tho KS, Chiu PL, Krishnamoorthy S (1994) Grade III open anklefractures—a review of the outcome of treatment. Singap Med J35(1):57–58
37. McGonagle L, Ralte P, Kershaw S (2010) Non-union of Weber Bdistal Wbula fractures: a case series. Foot Ankle Surg 16(3):63–67
38. Adili A, Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH (2002) The biomechanicaleVect of high pressure irrigation on diaphyseal fracture healing invivo. J Orthop Trauma 16:413–417
39. Jacquemaire B, Babin S, Katzner M, Calmes E, Schvingt E (1976)Treatment of open malleolar fractures. Apropos of a series of 26cases. J Chir (Paris) 112(6):419–430
40. Lister J (1867) On a new method of treating compound fracture,abscess, etc. Lancet 1:326, 357, 387, 507
41. Patzakis MJ, Harvey JP Jr, Ivler D (1974) The role of antibiotics in themanagement of open fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 56:532–541
42. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA et al (1994) Assessing thequality of randomisation from reports of controlled trialspublished in obstetrics and gynaecology journals. JAMA272:125–128
123
Top Related