Comparation of Clinical Outcome of Surgical vs. Conservative Management for Ankle Fracture Weber Type B: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: An ankle fracture or broken ankle occurs when the distal tibia or fibula, which make up the ankle joint, are fractured or broken. Soft-tissue injuries, especially to the ankle ligaments, are frequently seen. Accurate reduction of the fracture and syndesmosis is crucial in the treatment of ankle fractures in order to promote bone union and enhance patient functional results. While more unstable injuries are typically treated surgically with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) utilizing g a variety of techniques, including plates and screws or tightrope, more stable injuries are frequently treated conservatively with close contact casts or braces. There isn’t a recent systematic review in the literature that covers the best choice of treatment for Weber B fractures. Thus, it was essential to perform this study in order to assess the base of evidence about the surgical and non-surgical treatment of Weber B fractures. METHOD: A systematic review was comparison of clinical outcome between surgical versus conservative for Ankle Fracture Weber type B. in 256 records from various databases. After the process of identification, screening, eligibility, duplication elimination, and exclusion, the remaining 4 studies were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. The Review Manager version 5.4 software (RevMan; The Cochrane collaboration Oxford, England) to perform all statistical analyses DISCUSSION: This study reviewed 4 trials with a total of 1208 participants. Of these, 4 trials focused on AO-type-B distal fibula fracture. Overall, all of the studies that reported functional outcomes found no difference between surgical and conservative management. CONCLUSION: Both surgical and conservative care of displaced or unstable ankle fractures in adults result in similar functional outcomes and are both appropriate treatment methods