The 2-Window Posterolateral vs Single-Window Approach for Ankle Fracture Fixation

Abstract

Background: The posterolateral approach to the ankle allows for reduction and fixation of the posterior and lateral malleoli through the same surgical incision. This can be accomplished via 1 or 2 surgical “windows.” The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes including wound complications following direct fixation of unstable rotational ankle fracture through the posterolateral approach using either 1 or 2 surgical windows. Methods: One hundred sixty-four patients with bi- or trimalleolar ankle fractures treated using the single-window posterolateral approach (between the peroneal tendons and the flexor hallucis longus [FHL]) or the 2-window technique (between the peroneal tendons and the FHL for posterior malleolus fixation; lateral to the peroneal tendons for fibula fixation) were reviewed for demographics, radiographic details, and clinical outcomes. We were able to review these 164 at the 3-month follow-up and a subset of 104 at a minimum of 12-month follow-up. Results: One hundred eight ankles had the single-window approach; 56 had the 2-window approach. These 2 cohorts did not differ in demographic or injury characteristics. Ankles in the 2-window group experienced a greater number of early (3 months postsurgery) wound complications (32% vs 12%, P < .01). Two-window patients had more wound complications among ankles treated later than 1 week after injury (44% vs 16%, P < .01). There was no difference in surgical site infection, with low rates in both cohorts. Single-window patients had greater plantarflexion (35 ± 10 vs 30 ± 11 degrees, P = .025) and dorsiflexion after 12 months (21 ± 10 vs 16 ± 11 degrees, P = .021). We did not find a significant difference in nerve complications for these 2 cohorts. Conclusion: In our study, we found the single-window posterolateral approach to be associated with fewer wound complications and better postoperative range of ankle motion when compared to the 2-window approach. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.