Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 30, 2025

Minimally Invasive Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Using Sagittal Alignment Screws and A Trauma Reduction Device
Published on: November 8, 2024
Open versus closed pilon fractures: Comparison of management, outcomes, and complications
Victor Lu1, James Zhang1, Andrew Zhou1
1School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, CB2 0SP United Kingdom.
Insights
Open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) generally showed better outcomes for pilon fractures than fine wire fixation (FWF). ORIF led to quicker recovery and fewer complications, especially in severe fracture types.
Area of Science:
- Orthopedic Surgery
- Trauma Management
- Fracture Healing
Background:
- Pilon fractures, though rare, pose significant surgical challenges due to their high impact nature.
- High complication rates and prolonged recovery times complicate management for both surgeons and patients.
- Existing literature lacks a universal treatment algorithm for pilon fractures.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare outcomes and complications between open and closed pilon fractures.
- To evaluate treatment differences between open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and fine wire fixation (FWF).
- To analyze outcomes within open and closed fracture subgroups treated with ORIF versus FWF.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective study of 135 patients over 6 years at a major trauma center.
- Primary outcome: American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score at 3, 6, and 12 months.
- Secondary outcomes: time to partial weight-bear (PWB), full weight-bear (FWB), bone union time, and complications. AO/OTA classification used.
Main Results:
- ORIF groups showed higher AOFAS scores than FWF groups, with statistical significance in specific subgroups (43C open, 43B closed).
- ORIF subgroups generally experienced shorter PWB, FWB, and union times.
- Complications like non-union and post-traumatic arthritis were more frequent in FWF-treated patients, particularly for open fractures.
Conclusions:
- ORIF treatment generally yielded better functional outcomes and faster recovery compared to FWF for pilon fractures.
- Few differences reached statistical significance, but trends favored ORIF.
- A two-stage approach with temporary external fixation followed by ORIF or FWF resulted in low complication rates and good functional recovery.
Background:
Despite the low incidence of pilon fractures amongst lower limb injuries, their high impact nature presents difficulties in surgical management and recovery. The high complication rate and long recovery times presents a challenge for surgeons and patients. Current literature is varied, with no universal treatment algorithm. We aim to highlight differences in outcomes and complications between open and closed pilon fractures, and between patients treated by open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or fine wire fixator (FWF) for open and closed fracture subgroups.
Methods:
This retrospective study was conducted at a major trauma centre including 135 patients over a 6-year period. Primary outcome was AOFAS score at 3, 6, and 12-months post-injury. Secondary outcomes included time to partial weight-bear (PWB) and full weight-bear (FWB), bone union time, and complications during the follow-up time. AO/OTA classification was used (43A: n = 23, 43B: n = 30, 43C: n = 82). Interobserver agreement was high for bone union time (kappa=0.882) and AO/OTA class (kappa=0.807).
Results:
Higher AOFAS scores were seen in ORIF groups of both open and closed fractures, compared to FWF groups. The difference was not statistically significant apart from 12-month AOFAS score of 43C open fractures (p = 0.003) and in 43B closed fractures 3 and 6 months post-injury (p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). The majority of ORIF subgroups, open and closed fractures, also had shorter time to PWB, FWB, time to union, and follow-up. Statistically significant differences were seen in the following cases: ORIF-treated 43B closed fracture subgroup had shorter time to PWB and FWB (p<0.001 and p = 0.017, respectively), ORIF-treated 43C closed fractures had shorter time to union (p = 0.005). Common complications for open fractures were non-union (24%), post-traumatic arthritis (16%); for closed fractures they were post-traumatic arthritis (24%), superficial infection (21%). All occurred more frequently in FWF-treated patients.
Conclusion:
Most ORIF-treated subgroups in either open or closed pilon fractures showed better primary and secondary outcomes than FWF-treated subgroups, yet few were statistically significant. Overall, our use of a two-staged approach involving temporary external fixation, followed with ORIF or FWF achieved low complication rates and good functional recovery.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Fractures: Bone Repair
Minor fractures with no bone displacement are treated by immobilizing the fractured bone using a cast or splint. However, in the case of fractures with displaced bones, the broken bones are repositioned before immobilization to ensure successful healing without deformation and loss of function. The realignment of fractured bone ends is performed through a process called reduction. If the...
Flail Chest-II
Assessment:
1. Clinical Evaluation:
History:

