Retrospective Cohort Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Orthop. Apr 18, 2016; 7(4): 258-264
Published online Apr 18, 2016. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v7.i4.258
Table 1 Patients’ baseline data
Arthroscopic-assiste d reduction and internal fixationOpen reduction and internal fixationP value
Number1629
Age (yr)147.8 ± 16.345.0 ± 16.80.590
Male/female5/1119/100.0352
Lauge-Hansen Supination/ pronation14/219/100.164
Bone mineral density test7 (43.8%)3 (10.3%)0.0212
Table 2 Radiographic outcomes
Arthroscopic-assisted reduction and internal fixationOpen reduction and internal fixationP value
Meticulous grading
Anatomic (step/gap ≤ 1.0 mm)8 (50%)8 (27.6%)0.539
Good (step/gap = 1.1-2.0 mm)4 (25%)9 (31.0%)
Fair (step/gap = 2.1-3.0 mm)2 (12.5%)5 (17.2%)
Poor (step/gap > 3.0 mm)2 (12.5%)7 (24.1%)
General grading
Acceptable (step/gap ≤ 2.0 mm)12 (75.0%)17 (58.6%)0.341
Unacceptable (step/gap > 2.0 mm)4 (25.0%)12 (41.4%)
Table 3 Arthritic changes following the surgical treatments
TreatmentgroupsArthritic changes1
NoneMildModerateSignificanceP value
Arthroscopic- assisted reduction and internal fixation2 (25%)3 (37.5%)03 (37.5%)0.3
Open reduction and internal fixation2 (16.7%)6 (50%)3 (25%)1 (8.3%)
Total4 (20%)9 (45%)3 (15%)4 (20%)
Table 4 Bone mineral density test and related parameters
Patients with BMD tests (n = 10)Patients without BMD tests (n = 35)P value
Age (yr)164.2 ± 9.440.8 ± 14.3< 0.0012
Male/female2/822/130.0292
Lauge-Hansen Supination/ pronation9/124/110.246
ORIF/ARIF3/726/90.0212
Table 5 Arthroscopic findings in arthroscopic-assisted reduction and internal fixation patients
FindingsNumber of patients (%)
Osteochondral lesions
Talus10 (62.5%)
Tibial plafond1 (6.3%)
Modified outerbridge classification (talar lesion)
Grade I1 (6.3%)
Grade II4 (25%)
Grade III3 (18.8%)
Grade IV2 (12.5%)
Synovitis15 (93.7%)
Lateral1 (6.3%)
Medial and lateral11 (68.8%)
Unspecified3 (18.8%)
Ligamentous injury
None6 (37.5%)
AITFL6 (37.5%)
AITFL-PITFL2 (12.5%)
AITFL-Deep deltoid2 (12.5%)