Changes in clinical outcomes and alignment of the ipsilateral knee and ankle after supramalleolar osteotomy in patients with varus osteoarthritis of the ankle: a short-term follow-up study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the changes in clinical outcomes and alignment of the ipsilateral knee and ankle in patients with varus ankle osteoarthritis after supramalleolar osteotomy (SMO). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 23 patients (24 ankles) with Takakura II, IIIa and IIIb ankle osteoarthritis treated with SMO between May 2017 and March 2022. The radiologic parameters of ankles contained medial distal tibial angle (TAS), tibiotalar angle (TT), tibial lateral surface (TLS), tibial plafond inclination (TPI) and talar inclination (TI). The radiologic parameters of knees contained medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), joint line convergence angle (JLCA), the knee joint line orientation relative to ground (G-KJLO) and WBL. Hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) was also collected. The Takakura system was used for evaluating the ankle osteoarthritis and the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) system was used for evaluating the knee osteoarthritis. Clinical evaluation of the ankle joints contained American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), range of motion (ROM) and visual analogue scale (VAS). Clinical evaluation of the knee joints contained Japanese Orthopaedic Association Scores (JOA), ROM, VAS. RESULTS: The mean follow-up times were 20.3 ± 7.3 months (range 12-38). According to the radiologic evaluation, the TAS increased from preoperative 84.7° ± 2.0° to 91.2° ± 1.8° at the last follow-up (P < 0.001). The TPI and TI decreased from 4.4° ± 4.2° and 11.0° ± 5.2° to 0.1° ± 4.7° and 4.1° ± 4.8° (P < 0.001 for both). The TT angel improved from 9.5° ± 4.1° to 4.9° ± 3.3° (P < 0.001). No significant differences were found regarding MPTA, JLCA, G-KJLO, knee WBL and HKA (P > 0.05 for all). The Takakura stage improved after SMO (P < 0.001) whilst the KL stage maintains the similar lever (P > 0.05). According to the clinical evaluation, the AOFAS significantly increased from 67.5 ± 10.6 to 88.5 ± 9.3 and the VAS of the ankle decreased from 4.7 ± 1.6 to 1.2 ± 1.1, whilst there were no changes on VAS and even the JOA and knee ROM after SMO (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: SMO can alleviate the symptoms of varus ankle osteoarthritis and delay the time for ankle replacement or arthrodesis by redistributing the abnormal stress of the ankle and restoring the congruence of the tibiotalar joint. In addition, it did not induce the clinical symptoms of knee without compromising lower limb alignment or knee joint line orientation in the short term. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV case series.

Medial malleolar window approach for varus-type tibial pilon fractures: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: Choosing a suitable surgical approach is crucial and challenging for type C pilon fractures. This article aims to explore the clinical efficacy of the medial malleolar window approach for varus-type tibial pilon fractures. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 38 patients with type C varus-type pilon fractures treated between May 2018 and June 2021. In total, 16 cases underwent surgical treatment through the medial malleolar window approach and 22 cases were treated with the traditional anteromedial approach combined with a posterior approach. The operation time, hospitalization time, fracture healing time, the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle score, Visual Analogue Scale, and complications were recorded to comprehensively evaluate the clinical efficacy of the technique. Fracture reduction quality was evaluated using the criteria proposed by Burwell and Charnley. RESULTS: All patients were followed up. No patients presented delayed union or nonunion. Compared with the conventional approach, the medial malleolar window approach had the advantage of better clinical effect recovery and better fracture reduction (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the medial malleolar window approach had a shorter operation time, although the statistics suggest no significant difference with the control group. No implant exposure or infection occurred. There was good wound healing at two weeks after surgery in all but two cases. Local wound edge necrosis developed in one case in the medial malleolar window approach group, and the wound could not be closed at one stage in another case in the conventional group because of excessive tension, requiring secondary closure. CONCLUSION: The medial malleolar window approach provides excellent exposure to type C pilon fractures, allowing for satisfactory fracture reduction and functional rehabilitation. The medial window approach is recommended for varus-type pilon fractures, which can effectively avoid a posterior incision and reduce the operation time.