Comparison of Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Closed Reduction and Percutaneous Fixation for Medial Malleolus Fractures

INTRODUCTION: Surgical treatment of medial malleolus (MM) fractures can be performed through open or percutaneous approaches, although comparisons between these two approaches have not been undertaken. In this study, we compared patients with MM fractures treated with closed reduction and percutaneous fixation (CRPF) with patients treated with traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). METHODS: A group of 165 consecutive patients underwent surgical fixation of a closed MM fracture from 2011 to 2015 at a single institution. Thirty-one underwent CRPF and 134 underwent ORIF. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, treatment methods, and outcome variables were recorded through review of patient charts, radiographs, and surgical reports. RESULTS: The rate of MM fracture comminution was higher in the ORIF group compared with the CRPF group (9.7% vs 27.6%; P = 0.04). All other patient and injury variables were similar between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference observed between the CRPF and ORIF groups regarding outcomes, including nonunion, malunion, time to union, rate of hardware removal, and wound complications. DISCUSSION: Both CRPF and ORIF resulted in acceptable radiographic outcomes and low complication rates for the treatment of MM fractures.