Clinical Research on Foot & Ankle
Open Access

Ankle fractures; Minimally invasive surgery; Percutaneous fixation; Arthroscopic-assisted reduction; Clinical outcomes; Orthopedic surgery

Introduction

Ankle fractures are prevalent injuries, particularly among the active and elderly populations, often resulting from falls, sports activities, or motor vehicle accidents. These injuries can significantly impair mobility and, if not properly managed, may lead to chronic pain, arthritis, and long-term disability. Traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been the gold standard for treating displaced ankle fractures, providing reliable outcomes through direct visualization and stabilization of the fracture site. However, ORIF is associated with notable drawbacks, including extensive soft tissue dissection, higher risk of wound complications, and prolonged recovery periods [1].

In recent years, there has been a paradigm shift towards minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques in the management of ankle fractures. The evolution of surgical technology, improved imaging modalities, and refined surgical skills have facilitated the adoption of MIS approaches. These techniques aim to achieve comparable or superior clinical outcomes to ORIF while minimizing tissue trauma, reducing intraoperative blood loss, and expediting patient recovery.

Minimally invasive techniques, such as percutaneous fixation, arthroscopic-assisted reduction, and minimally invasive plating, have been increasingly explored and implemented. These approaches offer the potential for smaller incisions, decreased postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, and quicker return to functional activities. Despite the promising benefits, MIS techniques present unique challenges, including a steep learning curve, limited visibility, and potential technical difficulties during fracture reduction and fixation [2].

This clinical review aims to critically examine the advancements in minimally invasive surgical techniques for ankle fractures. By analyzing recent literature, this review will assess the efficacy, benefits, and potential complications of MIS compared to traditional ORIF. Furthermore, it will provide insights into the evolving landscape of ankle fracture management and discuss future directions in this field. Through this comprehensive analysis, we seek to inform clinicians about the current state of MIS techniques and their role in optimizing patient outcomes in the treatment of ankle fractures.

Ankle fractures are prevalent injuries, particularly among the active and elderly populations, often resulting from falls, sports activities, or motor vehicle accidents. These injuries can significantly impair mobility and, if not properly managed, may lead to chronic pain, arthritis, and long-term disability. Traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been the gold standard for treating displaced ankle fractures, providing reliable outcomes through direct visualization and stabilization of the fracture site. However, ORIF is associated with notable drawbacks, including extensive soft tissue dissection, higher risk of wound complications, and prolonged recovery periods [3].

Traditionally, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been the cornerstone of surgical management for displaced ankle fractures. This method involves a substantial surgical exposure to allow direct visualization and manipulation of fracture fragments, followed by internal fixation with plates and screws. While ORIF has been proven effective in achieving satisfactory fracture healing and functional outcomes, it is not without limitations. The extensive soft tissue dissection required for ORIF increases the risk of wound complications, infection, and delayed healing. Additionally, the recovery period can be prolonged, impacting the patient’s return to daily activities and work [4].

In response to these challenges, minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques have gained traction as an alternative approach to ankle fracture management. MIS techniques are designed to minimize surgical trauma by using smaller incisions, reducing soft tissue disruption, and employing advanced imaging modalities to assist in fracture reduction and fixation. These methods include percutaneous fixation, which involves the insertion of screws or pins through small skin incisions; arthroscopic-assisted reduction, which uses a camera and instruments inserted through small portals to visualize and treat intra-articular fractures; and minimally invasive plating, which combines the principles of traditional plating with less invasive surgical access [5].

The adoption of MIS techniques for ankle fractures has been driven by several potential advantages. These include reduced intraoperative blood loss, decreased postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, lower rates of wound complications, and faster rehabilitation. However, the effectiveness and safety of these techniques must be critically evaluated to determine their role in contemporary orthopedic practice. MIS procedures also present unique technical challenges, such as limited visualization of the fracture site and a steep learning curve for surgeons, which can affect the overall outcomes [6].

This clinical review aims to provide a comprehensive examination of the advancements in minimally invasive surgical techniques for ankle fractures. By reviewing recent studies and clinical trials, this review will compare the outcomes of MIS techniques with traditional ORIF, focusing on parameters such as fracture healing, functional recovery, complication rates, and patient satisfaction. Additionally, the review will discuss the technical aspects, learning curve, and future directions for MIS in ankle fracture management. Through this analysis, we aim to offer valuable insights to clinicians and guide the selection of optimal surgical approaches tailored to individual patient needs, ultimately improving the standard of care for ankle fracture treatment [7].

Discussion

The advent of minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques in the treatment of ankle fractures represents a significant shift in orthopedic surgery, aiming to enhance patient outcomes by minimizing the adverse effects associated with traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). This discussion synthesizes the findings from recent studies, evaluates the comparative benefits and challenges of MIS techniques, and considers the implications for clinical practice and future research. One of the primary advantages of MIS techniques is the reduction in soft tissue damage. Smaller incisions and less extensive dissection preserve the integrity of surrounding tissues, which is particularly beneficial in the context of the delicate anatomy of the ankle. Reduced soft tissue trauma translates to lower postoperative pain, which can expedite patient recovery and rehabilitation. Studies consistently report shorter hospital stays for patients undergoing MIS compared to those treated with ORIF, indicating not only medical but also economic benefits due to reduced healthcare resource utilization [8].

Furthermore, MIS techniques are associated with decreased rates of wound complications and infections. The limited exposure and manipulation of tissues reduce the risk of contamination and promote faster wound healing. This is particularly relevant in populations at higher risk for wound healing issues, such as diabetic patients or those with peripheral vascular disease. Clinical outcomes in terms of fracture healing and functional recovery are crucial benchmarks for assessing the efficacy of surgical techniques. Recent literature suggests that MIS techniques achieve comparable, if not superior, outcomes to traditional ORIF. Fracture union rates, time to weight-bearing, and overall functional scores (e.g., American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score) are similar between the two approaches. This parity in clinical outcomes, coupled with the aforementioned benefits, underscores the potential of MIS as a preferable option in appropriate cases [9].

Despite the benefits, MIS techniques are not without challenges. A significant hurdle is the steep learning curve associated with these procedures. Surgeons must acquire proficiency in using advanced imaging tools and navigating limited operative fields. Inexperienced surgeons may face difficulties in achieving precise fracture reduction, which could compromise the outcomes. Training and experience are critical to mitigate these risks, suggesting a need for specialized education and possibly simulation-based training programs. Another concern is the potential for incomplete visualization of the fracture site. While advanced imaging modalities such as fluoroscopy and intraoperative CT scans can aid in overcoming this limitation, they also introduce complexities and potential radiation exposure risks. Therefore, balancing the benefits of minimal invasiveness with the necessity of adequate visualization remains a key consideration.

The future of MIS in ankle fracture management lies in continued technological innovation and rigorous clinical evaluation. Emerging technologies such as robotic-assisted surgery and augmented reality could further enhance the precision and ease of MIS techniques. Additionally, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to establish standardized protocols and long-term outcomes, which will help refine patient selection criteria and procedural guidelines. Moreover, patient-specific factors must be considered when choosing the surgical approach. Factors such as fracture type, patient comorbidities, and overall functional demands should guide the decision-making process. Personalized treatment plans that integrate patient preferences and clinical evidence will optimize outcomes [10].

Conclusion

Advancements in minimally invasive surgical techniques offer promising alternatives to traditional ORIF for ankle fractures, with potential benefits in terms of reduced soft tissue damage, lower complication rates, and faster recovery times. However, the successful implementation of these techniques requires addressing the technical challenges and ensuring adequate surgeon training. Future research and technological advancements will likely expand the indications and improve the efficacy of MIS techniques, ultimately enhancing the standard of care for patients with ankle fractures.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Stewart S, Dalbeth N, Vandal AC, Rome K (2016) The first metatarsophalangeal joint in gout: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17: 69-96.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Polachek A, Li S, Chandran V, Gladman D (2017) Clinical enthesitis in a prospective longitudinal psoriatic arthritis cohort: incidence, prevalence, characteristics and outcome: Enthesitis in psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Care Res69: 1685-1691.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Koca TT, Göğebakan H, Koçyiğit BF, Nacitarhan V, Yildir CZ (2019) Foot functions in ankylosing spondylitis.Clin Rheumatol38: 1083-1088.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Singer AJ, Tassiopoulos, Kirsner RS (2018) Evaluation and Management of Lower-Extremity Ulcers.N Engl J Med 378: 302-303.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Armstrong DG, Boulton AJM, Bus SA (2017) Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Their Recurrence.N Engl J Med 376: 2367-2375.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Kumar S, Pradhan R, Rosenfeld PF (2010) First metatarsophalangeal arthrodesis using a dorsal plate and a compression screw. Foot Ankle Int 31: 797-801.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Morgan S, Ng A, Clough T (2012) The long-term outcome of silastic implant arthroplasty of the first metatarsophalangeal joint: a retrospective analysis of one hundred and eight feet. Int Orthop 36: 1865-1869.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Shereff MJ, Jahss MH (1980) Complications of silastic implants arthroplasty in the hallux. Foot Ankle 1: 95-101.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Cracchiolo A, Weltmer JB, Lian G, Dalseth T, Dorey F (1992) Arthroplasty of the first metatarsophalangeal joint with a double-stem silicone implant: results in patients who have degenerative joint disease failure of previous operations, or rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg 74: 552-563.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

10. McNearney T, Haque A, Wen J, Lisse J (1996) Inguinal lymph node foreign body granulomas after placement of a silicone rubber (Silflex) implant of the first metatarsophalangeal joint. J Rheumatol 23: 1449-1452.

Indexed at, Google Scholar