Dataset Information

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Arthroscopically Assisted Ankle Facture Treatment Versus Conventional Treatment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aim of this study was to assess the prospective, longitudinal outcome after arthroscopically assisted open reduction and internal fixation (AORIF) and to compare the results with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in complex ankle fractures.

Methods

Acute, closed, bimalleolar equivalent, bimalleolar, or trimalleolar ankle fractures were included. The AORIF cohort was enrolled prospectively. The ORIF group was identified from a retrospective database. The same inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The only difference was the additional arthroscopy in the AORIF cohort. The patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) following AORIF was assessed at 1 and 4 years of follow-up using the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) and Tegner activity scale (TAS). The AORIF cohort was propensity score matched (nearest-neighbor matching) to the ORIF database. The OMAS and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) were compared between the resulting groups. Nonparametric statistics were applied; values are presented as median (interquartile range). Twenty-six AORIF patients had a prospective 4-year follow-up.

Results

No significant differences (1 year vs 4 years) were identified for the OMAS (90 [10] vs 90 [11]) and TAS (4 [2] vs 5 [2]). The severity of the cartilage lesions (International Cartilage Repair Society [ICRS] grade <4 vs ICRS of 4) had no significant influence on the PROMs. Twenty-five patients per cohort (AORIF vs ORIF) were matched. The OMAS (90 [13] vs 75 [40]; P = .008) and FAAM Activities of Daily Living (ADL; 96 [11] vs 88 [30]; P = .034) revealed significantly better outcomes for AORIF. More patients in the AORIF cohort returned to sport (96% vs 77%; P = .035), with a higher FAAM Sports score (88 [37] vs 56 [47]; P = .008).

Conclusion

AORIF for complex ankle fractures led to consistently good to excellent results. The propensity score-matched analysis revealed a significantly better outcome 4 years after surgery for AORIF compared with ORIF.

Level of evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

SUBMITTER: Baumbach SF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8056703 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Promising efficacy and manageable toxicity of docetaxel-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) were reported in head and neck cancer. In addition, the effect of CCRT in combination with cisplatin and/or 5-fluorouracil on both locoregionally advanced and metastatic/recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) was verified. However, CCRT with docetaxel for locoregionally advanced NPC are not well studied. This study aimed to compare effectiveness and toxicities of CCRT with weekly docetaxel versus tri-weekly cisplatin for locoregionally advanced NPC. METHODS:Clinical data of patients with locoregionally advanced NPC newly diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2014 receiving CCRT with either weekly docetaxel (15 mg/m2) or tri-weekly cisplatin (80-100 mg/m2) were reviewed. Propensity score matching at a 1:1 ratio was performed to balance baseline characteristics. Adverse events and survival were compared between the two groups. RESULTS:A total of 962 patients were included as the whole cohort, and 448 patients were matched and were regarded as the matched cohort. The median follow-up duration was 48 months for the whole cohort. The 3-year nodal recurrence-free survival rate was significantly increased for patients treated with docetaxel in both the whole (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.72, P = 0.030) and matched cohorts (HR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.79, P = 0.023). However, no significant differences were observed in overall survival, local recurrence-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival between the two groups in both cohorts. Significantly higher rates of grade 3 radiodermatitis (6.7% vs. 1.8%, P = 0.001), mucositis (74.5% vs. 37.9%, P < 0.001), and leucopenia (2.2% vs. 11.6%, P < 0.001) were observed in the docetaxel group, but any grade of renal injury (1.8% vs. 15.1%, P < 0.001), vomiting (18.8% vs. 88.3%, P < 0.001), and ALT elevation (19.2% vs. 31.3%, P = 0.027) were more common in the cisplatin group. CONCLUSIONS:CCRT with weekly low-dose docetaxel is an effective and tolerable therapeutic regimen for locally advanced NPC. It provides a survival benefit mainly by improving the control of regional lymph node metastases, especially for patients with low pretreatment EBV DNA levels.

Project description:BackgroundPatients undergoing fixation for foot and ankle fractures may experience poor outcomes despite achieving apparent anatomic reduction. Adjunct arthroscopy to identify missed concomitant injuries and subtle displacements has been proposed as a vehicle to enhance functional results for these patients. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the literature regarding arthroscopically assisted open reduction and internal fixation (AAORIF) methods for commonly encountered foot and ankle injuries including pilon, ankle, and calcaneus fractures published to date.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was performed using the PubMed database to access all studies reporting on arthroscopically assisted internal fixation methods for pilon, ankle, and calcaneus fractures. Relevant publications were analyzed for details on their respective study designs, the operative technique used, clinical outcomes, outcome instruments used, and reported complications.ResultsA total of 32 studies were included in this review. Two studies on pilon fractures, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and case series with a total of 243 patients, met inclusion criteria. Postoperative articular reductions, bone union, and Mazur scores were found to be significantly better for those using adjunct arthroscopy when compared to those with no arthroscopy use. Patient-reported outcomes were overall reported as excellent for most patients, with no difference in patient-reported outcomes reported in the RCT. For ankle fractures, a total of 17 studies comprising of 2 systematic reviews, 1 meta-analysis, 2 RCTs, 5 retrospective comparative studies, 6 case series, and 1 case-control study met inclusion criteria for this review. Results were mixed, though the overall consensus was that arthroscopy use may help to better visualize concomitant intra-articular injuries and is generally considered safe with at least comparable outcomes to conventional methods. For the calcaneus, 13 studies met the criteria. Two studies were review papers, 8 were case series, and 3 were retrospective comparative studies. A total of 308 patients with 316 fractures formed the basis of analysis. In general, the studies found comparable functional outcomes between with or without arthroscopy use, but found that anatomical reductions were significantly improved with the use of arthroscopy.ConclusionsArthroscopy shows promise as a valuable adjunct tool for internal fixation of foot and ankle fractures, though definitive conclusions as to its clinical significance have yet to be drawn because of limited evidence. Potential advantages related to the direct visualization of the fracture site and minimally invasive nature of arthroscopy were suggested throughout studies examined in this review. The presence of intra-articular pathology may lead to unexpectedly poor outcomes seen in some patients who undergo surgical fixation of ankle fractures with an otherwise anatomic reduction on postoperative radiographs; the ability to diagnose and address these lesions with arthroscopy, therefore, has the potential to improve patient outcomes. To date, however, available literature has not shown that significant improvements in anatomical reductions and treatment of these intra-articular injuries provide any improvement in outcomes over standard fixation methods. Few prospective randomized controlled studies have been performed comparing these 2 operative techniques, rendering any suggestion that AAORIF improves clinical outcomes over traditional open fixation difficult to justify. Further research is indicated for what may be a potentially promising surgical adjunct prior to advocating for its routine use in patients.