Literature Decoded

Living reprintoriginally published in Foot & Ankle Specialist 2026CC BY 4.0Read the version of record Opt out

Literature DecodedLiving reprint
Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

Timing of Fracture Fixation in Ankle Fracture-Dislocations

Study first published in Foot & Ankle Specialist (2026), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Diederick Penning1ORCID iD 0000-0003-1355-1322, Jasper Tausendfreund2, M. Azad Naryapragi1, Kostan W. Reisinger3, Pieter Joosse2, Erik Tanis2, Tim Schepers1*

1Trauma Unit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands2Department of Trauma Surgery, Noordwest Ziekenhuisgroep, Alkmaar, The Netherlands3Trauma Unit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands*Corresponding author

Reprinted 2026-10-01 17 min read Living reprint · journal article Version of record: Foot & Ankle Specialist 2026Licence: CC BY 4.0

Reading mode
In plain languageStudy first published in Foot & Ankle Specialist (2026), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Study first published in Foot & Ankle Specialist (2026), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

Bottom line

What the evidence supports

How to read it

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Limitations

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Disclaimer

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The paper

Full manuscript

Abstract

Ankle fracture-dislocations may require delayed internal fixation. Our aim was to compare acute open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with delayed ORIF, using external fixation or cast splint in ankle fracture-dislocations. Factors that affect the rates of re-operation and Surgical site infection (SSI) were identified. In this retrospective cohort study, patients were included with open and closed ankle fracture-dislocations treated with ORIF from two large peripheral hospitals and one academic center in the Netherlands. This study included 447 patients with an ankle fracture-dislocation. In the multivariate analysis, the difference between surgery <48 hours compared to bridging with cast or external fixation had no significant influence on unscheduled re-operation or SSI. Higher body mass index (BMI) and open fractures had a significant positive correlation with re-operation while diabetes mellitus (DM) and open fractures correlated with SSI. In patients with open fractures, there was also no significant difference in outcome between acute or delayed internal fixation. We suggest that it is safe to perform primary ORIF on all dislocated ankle fractures if the soft tissue injury allows surgery within 48 hours. When significant swelling is present, patients with well-reduced fractures and with no soft tissue injury could be treated safely with a cast until delayed ORIF is possible.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic level 2B (retrospective cohort study)

Keywords: ankle fracture; ankle dislocation; external fixation; splint; temporary management

Overview

“Unstable ankle fractures with indication for surgical reduction are primarily treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).”

Introduction

Ankle fractures are among the most frequently observed injuries in emergency departments, with an incidence of 187 per 100,000 in the adult population.1,2 The demographics of patients with ankle fractures indicate an increased occurrence in the adolescent age group, and the primary mechanisms of injury include falls and sports-related incidents.3,4 Notably, there is an observed rise in the incidence of ankle fractures, possibly due to a more active elderly population. In addition, the highest age-specific incidence in women occurs in the decade between 75 and 84 years of age.5 -8

Ankle fractures can vary in type and severity, as depicted on the Lauge-Hansen classification (LH), Weber classification, or the number of fractured malleoli, often referred to as Pott’s classification.9 -11

Unstable ankle fractures with indication for surgical reduction are primarily treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). 12 However, ankle fractures with soft tissue damage, including significant swelling, may require delayed internal fixation.13,14 Therefore, a bridging cast or external fixation can be used to temporary stabilize the fracture until definitive surgery.15 -19 External fixation offers superior fracture stabilization and easier soft tissue monitoring compared to a bridging cast.18,19 However, patients treated with external fixation typically experience a longer hospital admission time, and the treatment may pose psychological challenges for them.20,21 Additionally, the higher costs associated with prolonged hospital stay following external fixation result in a more expensive overall treatment. 22

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most common and significant complications following ankle fracture surgery.23 -25 Various risk factors are associated with the prediction of SSIs. 26 Open fractures, generally classified using the Gustilo classification, are associated with an increased rate of SSI. 27 Additionally, the use of tobacco, diabetes mellitus (DM), a higher classification of the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ criteria (ASA), and an elevated body mass index (BMI) hold significant predictive value for the development of SSIs in ankle fractures.26,28,29 Dislocation fractures of the tibio-talar joint result from high-energy trauma with concomitant soft tissue damage. 30 When this soft tissue damage is severe, closure of the wound following ORIF may not be possible. Consequently, these fractures may require delayed internal fixation.31 -34

The aim of this study was to compare the use of acute ORIF with delayed ORIF, following the use of external fixation or cast splint in ankle fracture-dislocations, in relation to the risk of re-operation and postoperative SSI. Additionally, we compare the rates of re-operation and SSI, as well as the associated risk factors in a subgroup of open ankle fractures.

Materials and Methods

Study Design

This retrospective cohort study included all consecutive patients with an ankle fracture-dislocation who were surgically treated between January 2015 and December 2020. Patients were identified from two large peripheral hospitals and one academic center in the Netherlands, using the electronic patient file (EPF) using procedural and diagnostic codes. Data were extracted by two authors (DP and JT) and a consensus meeting was scheduled in case of any discrepancies (with ET, PJ, and TS).

Figure 1 shows the inclusion flowchart.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Inclusion flowchart. aCalcaneus, distal tibia, cruris, metatarsal, talus. bMissing follow-up visits or follow-up radiology. EPF: electronic patient file, ICF: informed consent form, ORIF: open reduction and internal fixation.

Inclusion criteria: age ≥ 18 years and/or skeletally mature, surgical treatment of an ankle fracture-dislocation with ORIF, minimal follow-up of 12 months.

Exclusion criteria: other type of fracture than ankle fracture, less than 50% talar dislocation, follow-up less than 12 months, started with non-surgical treatment, external fixation without secondary ORIF.

Ankle fractures were classified as a dislocated ankle fractures when there was a minimum of 50% displacement of the talus compared to the tibial pilon joint surface, in either the anteroposterior (AP) view, or the lateral view of the first radiographic image following trauma. 30 In addition, patients in which a documented closed reduction was performed prior to the initial radiographic imaging were included.

Patient demographic characteristics included gender, age, weight, BMI, DM, smoking status, alcohol consumption (more than two units/day), and ASA classification.

Injury-related variables included date of injury, fracture type classified using Weber, Lauge-Hansen, and the number of malleoli involved.9 -11 The presence of a fracture of the posterior malleolus was also registered separately. Furthermore, open fractures were classified according to the Gustilo classification. The subgroup of patients with open dislocated ankle fractures will be analyzed separately.

Treatment-related variables included date of surgery, time from injury to ORIF (less than 48 hours, more than 48 hours stabilized with cast, more than 48 hours stabilized with external fixation), reduction, use of cast, time from injury to external fixation, time from external fixation to ORIF. The applied cast was usually a circular split cast or back slab to provide room for swelling.

Outcome included SSI, type of infection (superficial or deep), re-operation, and need for (partial) removal of the implant. Postoperative infections were diagnosed and classified as deep or superficial by the clinician based on the CDC criteria. 35 Other registered complications were postoperative bleeding and skin necrosis.

This study was judged by the local medical ethics testing committee (METC AMC) as a non-WMO study. Patients from the academic center were asked to sign no-objection forms according to the METC and patients from the two peripheral hospitals were not asked for a declaration of no-objection, according to the judgment of their local METC.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 26.0.0.1.

For statistical data analysis, Pearson's chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare the categorical variables. Continuous variables were tested for normality with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests. Non-normally divided variables were compared using the Mann–Whitney U test and displayed as median with interquartile range (IQR). Normally distributed variables were compared using a t-test and displayed with a mean and standard deviation.

Binary logistic regression was used for univariate and multivariate analyses to calculate if the outcome variables were significantly dependent on demographic, injury-related or treatment-related variables. Odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were also calculated using binary logistic regression.

For all statistical tests, a P-value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

We included 447 patients with an ankle fracture-dislocation in our study. Table 1 shows the patient characteristics of the total group and the subgroups of primary fixation within 48 hours following trauma, secondary fixation stabilized with cast, or stabilized with external fixation. Significant differences between the groups were age, ASA score, percentage of patients in which pre-operative reduction has been performed, amount of malleoli involved, open fractures, and re-operation rate. Patients treated with temporary casts were significantly younger and had lower ASA classification. Patients treated with external fixations had a lower frequency of reduction prior to surgery and a higher rate of trimalleolar fracture. The open fractures were more frequently treated with external fixation. Patients treated with external fixation had a higher rate of re-operation.

Table 1.. Baseline Characteristics of all Patients With Ankle Fracture-Dislocations.
Primary ORIF <48 hours, n = 162Secondary ORIF, Cast, n = 226Secondary ORIF, external fixation, n = 59Total, n = 447P-value
Male gender (male, %)60 (37.0%)92 (40.7%)27 (45.8%)179 (40.0%)ns
Age, median, in years [IQR]58.5 [25]50 [32]59 [31]54 [30]<.01
BMI, median [IQR]27 [5]27 [6]28 [8]27 [6]ns
ASA score, n (%)162 (100%)226 (100%)59 (100%)447 (100%).01
ASA-1
ASA-2
ASA-3
ASA-4		48 (29.6%)
88 (54.3%)
23 (14.2%)
3 (1.9%)		89 (39.4%)
108 (47.8%)
29 (12.8%)
0 (0.0%)		11 (18.6%)
34 (57.6%)
12 (20.3%)
2 (3.4%)		148 (33.1%)
230 (51.5%)
64 (14.3%)
5 (1.1%)
Diabetes mellitus, n (%)15 (9.3%)17 (7.5%)4 (6.9%)36 (8.1%)ns
Alcohol a , n (%)18 (15.5%)27 (15.6%)7 (23.3%)52 (16.3%)ns
Smoking, n (%)32 (26.9%)39 (22.2%)10 (30.3%)81 (24.7%)ns
Reduction performed, n (%)149 (92.0%)214 (95.1%)47 (79.7%)410 (91.9%)<.01
Type of fracture, n (%)162 (100%)226 (100%)59 (100%)447 (100%)<.01
Unimalleolar
Bimalleolar
Trimalleolar		17 (10.5%)
57 (35.2%)
88 (54.3%)		33 (14.6%)
57 (25.2%)
136 (60.2%)		1 (1.7%)
13 (22.0%)
45 (76.3%)		51 (11.4%)
127 (28.4%)
269 (60.2%)
Posterior malleolar fracture, n (%)107 (66.0%)153 (67.7%)47 (79.7%)307 (68.7%)ns
Weber classification, n (%)162 (100%)226 (100%)59 (100%)447 (100%)ns
Not possible
Weber A
Weber B
Weber C		3 (1.9%)
2 (1.2%)
98 (60.5%)
59 (36.4%)		3 (1.3%)
4 (1.8%)
149 (65.9%)
70 (31.0%)		1 (1.7%)
0 (0.0%)
40 (67.8%)
18 (30.5%)		7 (1.6%)
6 (1.3%)
287 (64.2%)
147 (32.9%)
Lauge-Hansen classification n (%)159 (100%)226 (100%)57 (100%)442 (100%)ns
Not possible
Supination-adduction
Pronation-abduction
Supination-external rotation
Pronation-external rotation		7 (4.4%)
1 (0.6%)
2 (1.3%)
96 (60.4%)
53 (33.3%)		8 (3.5%)
3 (1.3%)
1 (0.4%)
149 (65.9%)
65 (28.8%)		1 (1.8%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
39 (68.4%)
17 (29.8%)		16 (3.6%)
4 (0.4%)
3 (0.7%)
284 (64.3%)
135 (30.5%)
Open fracture, n (%)48 (29.6%)10 (4.4%)22 (37.3%)80 (17.9%)<.01
Gustilo classification, n (%)48 (100%)10 (100%)22 (100%)80 (100%)<.01
Gustilo I
Gustilo II
Gustilo III		19 (39.6%)
15 (31.3%)
14 (29.2%)		8 (80.0%)
2 (20.0%)
0 (0.0%)		4 (18.2%)
13 (59.1%)
5 (22.7%)		31 (38.8%)
30 (37.5%)
19 (23.8%)
Time onset to ORIF, median, in days [IQR]0 [0-1]10 [8-13]12 [9-14]
Time Fix-ex to ORIF, median, in days [IQR]N.A.N.A.10 [8-13]
Re-operation n (%)19 (11.7 %)22 (9.7%)12 (20.3%)53 (11.9%).04
Indication for re-operation
Malunion
Secondary dislocation
Arthrodesis
Other
Infection
Vascular damage
Split skin graft		4 (2.6%)
6 (3.7%)
1 (0.6%)
2 (1.2%)
5 (3.1%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (0.6%)		2 (0.8%)
8 (3.5%)
0 (0.0%)
4 (1.8%)
8 (3.5%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)		0 (0.0%)
2 (3.4%)
4 (6.8%)
2 (3.4%)
3 (5.1%)
1 (1.7%)
0 (0.0%)		6 (1.3%)
16 (3.6%)
5 (1.1%)
8 (1.8%)
16 (3.6%)
1 (0.2%)
1 (0.2%)
Surgical site infection (SSI), n (%)17 (10.5%)25 (11.1%)8 (13.6%)50 (11.2%)ns
Type of SSI, n (%)17 (10.5%)25 (11.1%)8 (13.6%)50 (11.2%)ns
Superficial
Deep		11 (6.8%)
6 (3.7%)		13 (5.80%)
12 (5.3%)		5 (8.5%)
3 (5.1%)		28 (6.3%)
21 (4.7%)
Implant removal, n (%)52 (32.1%)94 (41.6%)15 (25.4%)161 (36.0%)ns
Plate
Syndesmotic screw only		48 (29.6%)
4 (2.5%)		83 (36.7%)
11 (4.9%)		12 (20.3%)
3 (5.1%)		143 (32.0%)
18 (4.0%)

a Alcohol more than 2 units/day.

All statistically significant values <0.05 are presented in bold.

Table 2 shows the correlation between each variable and re-operation. This was done using univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis. Therefore, the OR with concomitant p-value is provided for every variable. Positive correlating variables in the univariate analysis were BMI, BMI with a cut-off of 30, external fixation, and open fracture. In the multivariate analysis, BMI and open fractures had a positive correlation with re-operation, indicating that the risk of re-operation increases with higher BMI and in patients with open fractures.

Table 2.. Logistic Regression for Risk at Re-operation in Ankle Fracture-Dislocations (n = 53).
VariableOR (95% CI)P-value
Univariate
Age1.00 (0.98-1.01).70
Alcohol0.61 (0.21-1.81).38
ASA 1/2 or 3/41.14 (0.53-2.45).74
BMI1.09 (1.03-1.16)<.01
BMI <30 or >302.48 (1.30-4.73).01
Diabetes mellitus1.55 (0.61-3.91).36
Fix-ex2.16 (1.06-4.40).03
Gender1.22 (0.67-2.22).51
Lauge-Hansen
Not possible
Supination-adduction
Pronation-abduction
Supination-external rotation
Pronation-external rotation		Reference
0.00
0.80 (0.17-3.68)
1.29 (0.27-6.09)
3.5 (0.21-58.78)		.15
.77
.75
.38
Open fracture3.73 (2.01-6.90)<.01
Pre-operative re-dislocation0.81 (0.18-3.60).78
Primaire ORIF/Sec. ORIF/Fix Ex
<48 hr
Sec. ORIF
External fixation		Reference
0.81 (0.42-1.56)
1.92 (0.87-4.25)		.53
.11
Smoking1.34 (0.63-2.84).45
Tertius0.60 (0.34-1.08).09
UniBiTrimalleolar
Unimalleolar
Bimalleolar
Trimalleolar		Reference
0.83 (0.33-2.07)
0.62 (0.27-1.46)		.22
.69
.28
Weber
Not possible
A
B
C		.13
Multivariate
BMI
Open
Fix-ex		1.08 (1.02-1.15)
4.52 (2.24-9.13)
1.22 (0.51-2.94)		.02
<.01
.65
BMI
Open		1.08 (1.12-1.15)
4.68 (2.35-9.30)		.01
<.01
BMI >30
Open
Fix-ex		2.20 (1.12-4.31)
4.52 (2.25-9.12)
1.23 (0.52-2.95)		.02
<.01
.64
BMI >30
Open		2.22 (1.14-4.34)
4.69 (2.36-9.30)		.02
<.01

All statistically significant values <0.05 are presented in bold.

External fixation, however, had no correlation with re-operation, and BMI with a cut-off of 30 had a stronger correlation than BMI as a continuous variable.

Table 3 shows the outcome of the univariate and multiple logistic regressions to compare the influence of each variable on SSI.

Table 3.. Logistic Regression for Risk at SSI in Ankle Fracture-Dislocations (n = 50).
VariableOR (95% CI)P-value
Univariate
Age1.02 (1.00-1.03).08
Alcohol0.84 (0.31-2.27).73
ASA 1/2 or 3/41.23 (0.57-2.66).60
BMI1.05 (0.98-1.11).17
BMI <30 or >301.27 (0.62-2.60).52
Diabetes mellitus2.50 (1.07-5.83).03
Fix-ex1.29 (0.57-2.90).54
Gender1.00 (0.55-1.82).99
Smoking0.91 (0.39-2.08).82
Lauge-Hansen
Not possible
Supination-adduction
Pronation-abduction
Supination-external rotation
Pronation-external rotation		Reference
0.0 (0.00)
0.86 (0.19-3.97)
0.94 (0.20-4.53)
3.50 (0.21-58.77)		.63
1.00
.85
.94
.38
Open fracture2.18 (1.13-4.23).02
Pre-operative re-dislocation0.88 (0.20-3.93).86
Primary ORIF/Sec. ORIF/Fix Ex
<48 hours
Sec. ORIF
External fixation		Reference
1.05 (0.55-2.02)
1.33 (0.54-3.27)		.58
.88
.54
Posterior malleolar fracture1.08 (0.57-2.04).82
Uni-, Bi-, and Trimalleolar
Unimalleolar
Bimalleolar
Trimalleolar		Reference
0.97 (0.32-2.90)
1.29 (0.48-3.47)		.44
.95
.62
Weber
Not possible
A
B
C		.64
Multivariate
DM
Open		2.49 (1.06-5.87)
2.21 (1.14-4.31)		.04
.02

All statistically significant values <0.05 are presented in bold.

Positively correlating variables in the univariate analysis were DM and open fractures. In the multivariate analysis, DM and open fractures led to an increased risk of SSI.

A subgroup analysis for patients with open ankle fractures was performed. This group is shown in Table 4. There was a significant difference in Gustilo's classification between the methods of treatment. A univariate and multiple regression analysis was performed to study the influence of every variable on outcome. The results for re-operation are shown in Table 5, and for SSI in Table 6.

Table 4.. Characteristics of Patients With Open Ankle Fractures.
Open ankle fractures
Patients, n		Primary ORIF
N = 48		Secondary ORIF
Cast
N = 10		Secondary ORIF
Fix-ex
N = 22		Total
N = 80		P-value
Male gender (Male, %)22 (45.8%)6 (60.0%)13 (59.1%)41 (51.2%)ns.
Age, median, in years [IQR]61.5 [37]46.5 [32]53.5 [32]60.5 [36]ns.
BMI, median [IQR]27.4 [7]31.0 [13]26.9 [8]27.6 [8]ns.
BMI >30, n (%)11 (31.4%)4 (40.0%)5 (22.7%)20 (34.5%)ns.
ASA score, n (%)
ASA-1
ASA-2
ASA-3
ASA-4		11 (22.9%)
27 (56.3%)
8 (16.7%)
2 (4.2%)		3 (30.0%)
6 (60.0%)
1 (10.0%)
0		3 (13.6%)
14 (63.6%)
4 (18.2%)
1 (4.5%)		17 (21.3%)
47 (58.8%)
13 (16.3%)
3 (3.8%)		ns.
Diabetes mellitus, n (%)3 (6.3%)2 (20.0%)2 (9.1%)7 (8.9%)ns.
Alcohol a , n (%)1 (2.1%)02 (9.1%)3 (6.1%)ns.
Smoking, n (%)9 (18.8%)04 (18.2%)13 (16.3%)ns.
Type of fracture, n (%)
Unimalleolar
Bimalleolar
Trimalleolar		8 (16.7%)
22 (45.8%)
18 (37.5%)		1 (10.0%)
7 (70.0%)
2 (20.0%)		1 (4.5%)
7 (31.8%)
14 (63.6%)		10 (12.5%)
36 (45.0%)
34 (42.5%)		ns.
Posterior malleolar fracture, n (%)24 (50.0%)2 (20.0%)14 (63.6%)40 (50.0%)ns.
Lauge-Hansen classification, n (%)ns.
Not possible
Supination-adduction
Pronation-abduction
Supination-external rotation
Pronation-external rotation		5 (10.4%)
1 (2.1%)
1 (2.1%)
24 (51.1%)
16 (33.3%)		0
2 (20.0%)
0
4 (40.0%)
4 (40.0%)		0
0
0
14 (66.7%)
7 (33.3%)		5 (6.4%)
3 (3.8%)
1 (1.3%)
42 (53.8%)
27 (34.6%)
Gustilo classification, n (%).01
Gustilo I
Gustilo II
Gustilo III		19 (39.6%)
15 (31.3%)
14 (29.2%)		8 (80.0%)
2 (20.0%)
0		4 (18.2%)
13 (59.1%)
5 (22.7%)		31 (38.8%)
30 (37.5%)
19 (23.8%)
Time onset to ORIF (in days)12.5 [7]12.0 [7]ns.
Time Fix-ex to ORIF11.0 [7]
Re-operation, n (%)12 (25.0%)3 (30.0%)6 (27.3%)21 (26.3%)ns.
Malunion
Secondary dislocation
Arthrodesis
Other
Infection
Vascular damage
Pseudo-arthritis
Split skin graft		3 (6.3%)
3 (6.3%)
0
1 (2.1%)
4 (8.33%)
0
0
1 (2.1%)		0
1 (10%)
0
0
2 (20%)
0
0
0		0
0
4 (18.2%)
1 (4.5%)
1 (4.5%)
0
0
0		3 (3.8%)
4 (5.0%)
4 (5.0%)
2 (2.5%)
7 (8.9%)
0
0
1 (1.3%)
Surgical site infection (SSI), n (%)9 (18.8%)3 (30.0%)3 (13.6%)15 (18.8%)ns.
Superficial
Deep		3 (6.3%)
5 (10.4%)		0
3 (30.0%)		2 (9.1%)
1 (4.5%)		5 (6.4%)
9 (11.3%)
Implant removal, n (%)
Plate
Syndesmotic screw only		14 (29.2%)
2 (4.2%)		5 (50.0%)
0		3 (13.6%)
2 (9.1%)		22 (27.5%)
4 (5.0%)		ns.

a Alcohol more than 2 units/day.

All statistically significant values <0.05 are presented in bold.

Table 5.. Logistic Regression for the Risk at Re-operation in Open Fractures (n = 21).
VariableOR (95% CI)P-value
Univariate
Age1.01 (0.98-1.03).84
Alcohol0.001.00
ASA 1/2 or 3/41.36 (0.41-4.52).61
BMI1.13 (1.01-1.25).03
BMI <30 or >302.29 (0.73-7.16).15
Diabetes mellitus8.75 (1.55-49.42).01
Fix-ex1.08 (0.36-3.25).90
Gender1.58 (0.58-4.32).37
Lauge-Hansen
Not possible
Supination-adduction
Pronation-abduction
Supination-external rotation
Pronation-external rotation		Reference
0.00
1.09 (0.11-11.01)
2.35 (0.23-24.10)		1.00
1.00
.94
.47
Pre-operative re-dislocation0.001.00
Primaire ORIF/Sec. ORIF/Fix Ex
<48h
Sec. ORIF
External fixation
Reference
1.29 (0.29-5.78)
1.13 (0.36-3.53)
.74
.84
Smoking0.31 (0.06-1.61).17
Posterior malleolar fracture0.52 (0.19-1.44).21
Uni-, Bi-, Tri-malleolar
Unimalleolar
Bimalleolar
Trimalleolar		Reference
0.58 (0.13-2.49)
0.39 (0.09-1.77)		.46
.22
Multivariate
BMI
DM		1.06 (0.93-1.21)
7.62 (0.61-95.70)		.36
.12

All statistically significant values <0.05 are presented in bold.

Table 6.. Logistic Regression for the Risk at SSI in Open Fractures (n = 15).
VariableOR (95% CI)P-value
Univariate
Age1.01 (0.98-1.04).61
Alcohol0.001.00
ASA 1/2 or 3/41.61 (0.44-5.92).48
BMI1.14 (1.02-1.27).03
BMI <30 or >302.95 (0.88-9.94).08
Diabetes mellitus7.39 (1.45-37.69).02
Fix-ex0.61 (0.15-2.39).47
Gender1.25 (0.41-3.86).69
Lauge-Hansen
Not possible
Supination-adduction
Pronation-abduction
Supination-external rotation
Pronation-external rotation		Reference
0.00
0.00
0.94 (0.09-9.60)
0.91 (0.08-9.99)		1.00
1.00
.96
.94
Pre-operative re-dislocation0.001.00
Primaire ORIF/Sec. ORIF/Fix Ex
<48h
Sec. ORIF
External fixation
Reference
1.86 (0.40-8.62)
0.68 (0.17-2.82)
.43
.60
Smoking0.59 (0.11-3.15).53
Posterior malleolar fracture0.61 (0.19-1.90).39
Uni-, Bi-, Tri-malleolar
Unimalleolar
Bimalleolar
Trimalleolar		Reference
0.56 (0.12-2.75)
0.40 (0.78-2.10)		.48
.28
Multivariate
BMI
DM		1.09 (0.95-1.25)
3.31 (0.37-29.98)		.22
.29

All statistically significant values <0.05 are presented in bold.

In this group, higher BMI and DM had a correlation with both re-operation and SSI in the univariate analysis but were not significant in the multivariate analysis. Also, in this group, external fixation had no correlation with both re-operation and SSI.

Discussion

In this cohort, there was no significant increase in re-operation and SSI when external fixation was used before ORIF in patients with ankle fracture-dislocations. Even though external fixation is particularly reserved for ankle fractures with more severe soft tissue damage. BMI and open fractures were related to a higher frequency of re-operation. DM and open fractures were related to a higher frequency of SSI. Open fractures and DM have also been identified as risk factors in ankle fractures without dislocation.36,37 Specifically for patients with DM, non-surgical treatment of ankle fractures is associated with high complication rates, although a different study did not find any correlation between surgical timing and postoperative complications.38,39 However, studies about risk factors in patients with ankle fracture-dislocations are limited.

Open fractures, characterized by the highest degree of soft tissue damage, were associated with increased rates of re-operation and SSI in our cohort. Consequently, we focused on this subgroup to identify additional risk factors. Among patients with open ankle fracture-dislocations, no correlation was found with any of the variables, including the strategy of treatment (direct or delayed). In a previous multivariate analysis, significant predictors of infection in open ankle fractures were identified: male gender, DM, smoking, use of immunosuppressants, lateral wound localization, and time to closure. 40

There were no indications that the use of external fixation reduced the risk of SSI or re-operation. Therefore, we suggest that all efforts should be made to surgically treat patients with ankle fracture-dislocations within 48 hours following trauma. This is supported by previous studies on the timing of surgery for unstable ankle fractures, where early surgery decreases the risk of complications. 41 Additionally, a study by Tanoglu compared 1-stage and 2-stage surgery in ankle fracture-dislocations and concluded that 2-stage surgery is a safe option, but functional outcome scores were not superior following external fixation. 42 In some cases, for example, when swelling prevents complete closure following internal fixation, the window for surgery within 48 hours is not feasible, and the choice of treatment is limited to delayed ORIF using either external fixation or cast. Patients with open ankle fracture-dislocations and a higher risk for re-operation or infection could be treated using an external fixator because this offers an easier view of the wound and more stabilization compared to a cast. Our data do not show a higher percentage of dislocation in a cast or increased risk for re-operation following trimalleolar fractures. This is in contrast to Buyukkuscu et al, 18 and Wawrose et al 19 who have found external fixation reduces the risk of loss of reduction and skin necrosis, compared to bridging with the cast. These studies respectively consisted of 56 and 117 patients and were therefore considerably smaller than our cohort.

Both Wawrose and Buyukkuscu found higher percentages of re-dislocation in a cast, compared to our cohort with 3.5% re-dislocation (Wawrose 50.0% and Buyukkuscu 24.6%). Because our cohort is retrospective, it is possible that more stable fractures were selected for bridging with a cast. This might be the reason for the comparable re-dislocation rates between the groups. However, the two studies of Wawrose and Buyukkuscu were also of retrospective nature and therefore, the design of our study would not be completely responsible for the difference in re-dislocation. It does remain important to recognize the patients with fractures that are more likely to re-dislocate than others. The risk factors for re-operation suggest we should be cautious in selecting patients for temporary stabilization with a cast. These risk factors include fractures with larger posterior malleolar fragments, even though this was not supported by our results.30,43 Ankle fracture-dislocations are also associated with more long-term symptoms, including pain, loss of ROM, and increased problems with ADL and sport. 44 However, the number of studies comparing the functional outcome of different treatment strategies in patients with ankle fracture-dislocation is limited.18,42 Long-term follow-up of a larger-sized prospective cohort including functional outcomes of patients with ankle fracture-dislocations would provide us with a better comprehension of cartilage damage, which has been studied in ankle fractures without dislocation. 45 Mid-term and long-term functional outcomes have also been studied in relatively small cohorts.46,47 Therefore, these subjects might be the scope of future studies.

A limitation of this study is the retrospective character, which includes the risk of selection bias. Clinicians made the decision about the choice of treatment. This may explain the differences in age, ASA class, and type of injury between the groups. This was because the treating clinicians could have made the decision to treat patients with more severe fractures, frail patients, or severely damaged soft tissue injuries differently than others. We aimed to decrease the influence of selection bias by performing the multivariate regression analysis and therefore identify independent risk factors.

In our cohort, patients with higher BMI and DM had an increased risk for re-operation or SSI.

For patients with closed ankle fracture-dislocations without these risk factors, the clinician could consider bridging time to surgery with cast when fixation within 48 hours is not possible. This is because we did not find that the use of external fixation significantly decreases the chance of SSI or re-operation.

Based on this large retrospective cohort study, we suggest that it is safe to perform primary ORIF on all dislocated ankle fractures if the soft tissue injury allows surgery within 48 hours. When significant swelling is present, temporary immobilization is a safe option to allow for surgery when swelling is reduced. Patients with well-reduced fractures and with no soft tissue injury could be treated safely with a cast until delayed ORIF is possible. Patients with higher BMI and DM have an increased risk for re-operation or SSI. This study guides clinicians to select patients for each of the treatment options.

Declarations

Author Contributions: All authors contributed to the study's conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Diederick Penning, Azad Naryapragi, and Jasper Tausendfreund. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Diederick Penning, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Shared second authorship.

Ethical Approval: This retrospective chart review study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Human Investigation Committee (IRB) of Amsterdam UMC approved this study. This study was judged by the local medical ethics testing committee (METC AMC) as a non-WMO study.

Informed Consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Trial Registration: Not applicable. The trial was conducted in a retrospective manner and therefore not registered.

ORCID iD: Diederick Penning https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1355-1322

Sources

References

47 references, in the article's own order. Citation numbers in the text are this list's numbers (39 records are cited).

  1. Epidemiology of extremity fractures in the Netherlands

    Beerekamp MSH, de Muinck Keizer RJO, Schep NWL, Ubbink DT, Panneman MJM, Goslings JC

    2017Injury 48(7):1355–1362 · PMID 28487101doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.04.047

  2. Epidemiology of ankle fractures in Rochester, Minnesota

    Daly PJ, Fitzgerald RH, Melton LJ, Ilstrup DM.

    1987Acta Orthop Scand 58(5):539–544 · PMID 3425285doi:10.3109/17453678709146395

  3. Epidemiology, management, and outcome of sport-related ankle fractures in a standard UK population

    Robertson GA, Wood AM, Aitken SA, Court Brown C

    2014Foot Ankle Int 35(11):1143–1152 · PMID 25092880doi:10.1177/1071100714546548

  4. Ankle fracture epidemiology in the United States: patient-related trends and mechanisms of injury

    Scheer RC, Newman JM, Zhou JJ

    2020J Foot Ankle Surg 59(3):479–483 · PMID 32354504doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2019.09.016

  5. Epidemiology of ankle fractures. A prospective population-based study of 212 cases in Aalborg, Denmark

    Jensen SL, Andresen BK, Mencke S, Nielsen PT.

    1998Acta Orthop Scand 69(1):48–50 · PMID 9524518doi:10.3109/17453679809002356

  6. Population-based epidemiology of 9767 ankle fractures

    Elsoe R, Ostgaard SE, Larsen P.

    2018Foot Ankle Surg 24(1):34–39 · PMID 29413771doi:10.1016/j.fas.2016.11.002

  7. Adult ankle fractures–an increasing problem?

    Court-Brown CM, McBirnie J, Wilson G

    1998Acta Orthop Scand 69(1):43–47 · PMID 9524517doi:10.3109/17453679809002355

  8. The geographic incidence and treatment variation of common fractures of elderly patients

    Sporer SM, Weinstein JN, Koval KJ.

    2006J Am Acad Orthop Surg 14(4):246–255 · PMID 16585366doi:10.5435/00124635-200604000-00006

  9. Théorie et pratique de l’ostéosynthèse

    Danis R.

    1949

  10. Fractures of the ankle II. Combined experimental-surgical and experimental-roentgenologic investigations

    Lauge-Hansen N

    1950Arch Surg 60(5):957–985 · PMID 15411319

  11. THE CLASSIC: some few general remarks on fractures and dislocations

    Pott P.

    2007Clin Orthop Relat Res 458:40–41 · PMID 17473597doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e31803dd063

  12. Outcome after unstable ankle fracture: effect of syndesmotic stabilization

    Egol KA, Pahk B, Walsh M, Tejwani NC, Davidovitch RI, Koval KJ.

    2010J Orthop Trauma 24(1):7–11 · PMID 20035171doi:10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181b1542c

  13. Early versus delayed treatment of severe ankle fractures: a comparison of results

    Konrath G, Karges D, Watson JT, Moed BR, Cramer K.

    1995J Orthop Trauma 9(5):377–380 · PMID 8537839doi:10.1097/00005131-199505000-00003

  14. Initial management of closed fracture-dislocations of the ankle

    Payne R, Kinmont JC, Moalypour SM.

    2004Ann R Coll Surg Engl 86(3):177–181 · PMID 15140302doi:10.1308/003588404323043300

  15. A staged protocol for soft tissue management in the treatment of complex pilon fractures

    Sirkin M, Sanders R, DiPasquale T, Herscovici D

    1999J Orthop Trauma 13(2):78–84 · PMID 10052780doi:10.1097/00005131-199902000-00002

  16. A multicentre, randomized, parallel group, superiority study to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of external frame versus internal locking plate for complete articular pilon fracture fixation in adults

    Flett L, Adamson J, Barron E

    2021Bone Jt Open 2(3):150–163 · PMID 33663229doi:10.1302/2633-1462.23.BJO-2020-0178

  17. Open reduction with internal fixation versus limited internal fixation and external fixation for high grade pilon fractures (OTA type 43C)

    Davidovitch RI, Elkhechen RJ, Romo S, Walsh M, Egol KA.

    2011Foot Ankle Int 32(10):955–961 · PMID 22224324doi:10.3113/FAI.2011.0955

  18. Splinting vs temporary external fixation in the initial treatment of ankle fracture-dislocations

    Buyukkuscu MO, Basilgan S, Mollaomeroglu A, Misir A, Basar H.

    2022Foot and Ankle Surgery 28(2):235–239 · PMID 33814287doi:10.1016/j.fas.2021.03.018

  19. Temporizing external fixation vs splinting following ankle fracture dislocation

    Wawrose RA, Grossman LS, Tagliaferro M, Siska PA, Moloney GB, Tarkin IS.

    2020Foot Ankle Int 41(2):177–182 · PMID 31595787doi:10.1177/1071100719879431

  20. Psychosocial issues relating to external fixation of fractures

    Limb M.

    2003Nurs Times 99(44):28–30 · PMID 14649138

  21. The psychological impact of external fixation using the Ilizarov or Orthofix LRS method to treat tibial osteomyelitis with a bone defect

    Abulaiti A, Yilihamu Y, Yasheng T, Alike Y, Yusufu A.

    2017Injury 48(12):2842–2846 · PMID 29122280doi:10.1016/j.injury.2017.10.036

  22. Cost description of inpatient treatment for ankle fracture

    Murray AM, McDonald SE, Archbold P, Crealey GE.

    2011Injury 42(11):1226–1229 · PMID 20869055doi:10.1016/j.injury.2010.08.023

  23. Impact of surgical site infection on healthcare costs and patient outcomes: a systematic review in six European countries

    Badia JM, Casey AL, Petrosillo N, Hudson PM, Mitchell SA, Crosby C.

    2017· PMID 28410761doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2017.03.004

  24. A predictive score for determining risk of surgical site infection after orthopaedic trauma surgery

    Wise BT, Connelly D, Rocca M

    2019J Orthop Trauma 33(10):506–513 · PMID 31188262doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000001513

  25. A case-control study of surgical site infection following operative fixation of fractures of the ankle in a large U.K. trauma unit

    Korim MT, Payne R, Bhatia M

    2014Bone Joint J 636–640 · PMID 24788498doi:10.1302/0301-620x.96b5.33143

  26. Predictive model for surgical site infection risk after surgery for high-energy lower-extremity fractures: development of the risk of infection in orthopedic trauma surgery score

    Paryavi E, Stall A, Gupta R

    2013J Trauma Acute Care Surg 74(6):1521–1527 · PMID 23694882doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e318292158d

  27. Prevention of infection in the treatment of one thousand and twenty-five open fractures of long bones: retrospective and prospective analyses

    Gustilo RB, Anderson JT.

    1976J Bone Joint Surg Am 58(4):453–458 · PMID 773941

  28. Host classification predicts infection after open fracture

    Bowen TR, Widmaier JC

    Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005(433):205–211 · PMID 15805959doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000150345.51508.74

  29. Surgical site infection in patients submitted to orthopedic surgery: the NNIS risk index and risk prediction

    Ercole FF, Chianca TC, Duarte D, Starling CE, Carneiro M.

    2011Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 19(2):269–276 · PMID 21584372doi:10.1590/s0104-11692011000200007

  30. Observations on closed reduction of ankle fracture-dislocations with subsequent operative treatment: predicting the need for early operative intervention based on clinical features of reduction

    Matson AZR, Green C, Hurwitz S

    2017Foot Ankle Stud 1(2):1008

  31. Ankle Fractures: impact of swelling on timing of surgery, length of hospital stay and the economic burden

    Sukeik M, Qaffaf M, Ferrier G.

    2011Orthop Proc 124–124doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93BSUPP_II.0930124a

  32. The influence of the timing of surgery on soft tissue complications and hospital stay

    Høiness P, Strømsøe K.

    2000Ann Chir Gynaecol 89(1):6–9 · PMID 10791637

  33. Early versus late surgery for closed ankle fractures

    Singh RA, Trickett R, Hodgson P.

    2015J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 23(3):341–344 · PMID 26715714doi:10.1177/230949901502300317

  34. The influence of timing of surgery on soft tissue complications in closed ankle fractures

    Saithna A, Moody W, Jenkinson E, Almazedi B, Sargeant I.

    2009Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 19(7):481–484doi:10.1007/s00590-009-0455-5

  35. New CDC guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection

    Todd B.

    2017Am J Nurs 117(8):17 · PMID 28749874doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000521963.77728.c0

  36. Risk factors for wound complications after ankle fracture surgery

    Miller AG, Margules A, Raikin SM.

    2012J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(22):2047–2052 · PMID 23172322doi:10.2106/jbjs.K.01088

  37. Complication rates following open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures

    SooHoo NF, Krenek L, Eagan MJ, Gurbani B, Ko CY, Zingmond DS.

    2009J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(5):1042–1049 · PMID 19411451doi:10.2106/jbjs.H.00653

  38. Nonoperative versus operative treatment of displaced ankle fractures in diabetics

    Lovy AJ, Dowdell J, Keswani A

    2017Foot Ankle Int 38(3):255–260 · PMID 27923219doi:10.1177/1071100716678796

  39. Surgical timing for torsional ankle fractures is not associated with post-operative complications in patients with type II diabetes mellitus

    Konopitski AP, Malige A, Rodriguez W, Nwachuku CO.

    2022Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142(12):3889–3894 · PMID 35083521doi:10.1007/s00402-021-04321-0

  40. Open ankle fractures: what predicts infection? A multicenter study

    Cooke ME, Tornetta PI, Firoozabadi R

    2022J Orthop Trauma 36(1):43–48 · PMID 34711768doi:10.1097/bot.0000000000002293

  41. The timing of ankle fracture surgery and the effect on infectious complications; a case series and systematic review of the literature

    Schepers T, De Vries MR, Van Lieshout EM, Van der Elst M.

    2013Int Orthop 37(3):489–494 · PMID 23288046doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1753-9

  42. Two-stage surgery for the malleolar fracture−dislocation with severe soft tissue injuries does not affect the functional results

    Tanoğlu O, Gökgöz MB, Özmeriç A, Alemdaroğlu KB.

    2019J Foot Ankle Surg 58(4):702–705 · PMID 31079983doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2018.11.033

  43. Temporizing cast immobilization is a safe alternative to external fixation in ankle fracture-dislocation while posterior malleolar fragment size predicts loss of reduction: a case control study

    Gerlach R, Toepfer A, Jacxsens M, Zdravkovic V, Potocnik P.

    2022BMC Musculoskelet Disord 23(1):698 · PMID 35869482doi:10.1186/s12891-022-05646-6

  44. Fracture-dislocations demonstrate poorer postoperative functional outcomes among pronation external rotation IV ankle fractures

    Warner SJ, Schottel PC, Hinds RM, Helfet DL, Lorich DG.

    2015Foot Ankle Int 36(6):641–647 · PMID 25690442doi:10.1177/1071100715572222

  45. Cartilage lesions and the development of osteoarthritis after internal fixation of ankle fractures: a prospective study

    Stufkens SA, Knupp M, Horisberger M, Lampert C, Hintermann B.

    2010J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(2):279–286 · PMID 20124053doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01635

  46. Clinical and radiological results after fracture-dislocations of the ankle: a medium-to long-term followup study

    De Luna V, Caterini A, Casci C

    2022J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 7(2):30 · PMID 35466265doi:10.3390/jfmk7020030

  47. Functional outcomes after fracture-dislocation of the ankle

    Tantigate D, Ho G, Kirschenbaum J

    2019Foot Ankle Spec 13(1):18–26 · PMID 30712370doi:10.1177/1938640019826701

Article record

The record

Status

Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

Status
Version of record: Foot & Ankle Specialist 2026
Journal version
Foot & Ankle Specialist (2026) · doi:10.1177/19386400241273105
Confirmed
2024-10-05
Licence
CC BY 4.0

This reprint has no DOI of its own: cite the journal article.

The journal's version is the version of record. This page re-typesets it under the article's licence; where they differ, the journal's version is authoritative.

Version history

  1. Published in Foot & Ankle Specialist2024-10-05
  2. Living reprint on Literature Decoded2026-10-01
  3. Reprinted here2026-10-01
  4. This HTML2026-10-01

Cite this article

Citation
Penning D, Tausendfreund J, Naryapragi MA, Reisinger KW, Joosse P, Tanis E, et al. Timing of Fracture Fixation in Ankle Fracture-Dislocations. Foot Ankle Spec. 2026;19(4):368–382. doi:10.1177/19386400241273105
BibTeX
@article{Penning2026Timing,
  title   = {Timing of Fracture Fixation in Ankle Fracture-Dislocations},
  author  = {Diederick Penning and Jasper Tausendfreund and M. Azad Naryapragi and Kostan W. Reisinger and Pieter Joosse and Erik Tanis and Tim Schepers},
  journal = {Foot \& Ankle Specialist},
  year    = {2026},
  volume  = {19},
  number  = {4},
  pages   = {368–382},
  doi     = {10.1177/19386400241273105},
  pmid    = {39367857}
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Timing of Fracture Fixation in Ankle Fracture-Dislocations
AU  - Diederick Penning
AU  - Jasper Tausendfreund
AU  - M. Azad Naryapragi
AU  - Kostan W. Reisinger
AU  - Pieter Joosse
AU  - Erik Tanis
AU  - Tim Schepers
JO  - Foot & Ankle Specialist
PY  - 2026
VL  - 19
IS  - 4
SP  - 368
EP  - 382
DO  - 10.1177/19386400241273105
SN  - 1938-6400
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1177/19386400241273105
ER  -

Cite the original article (the version of record), not this reprint.

Take it with you

One self-contained HTML file: the text, data and figures, readable offline.

Disclaimer and limitations

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Licence and attribution

This page reproduces Timing of Fracture Fixation in Ankle Fracture-Dislocations by Diederick Penning, Jasper Tausendfreund, M. Azad Naryapragi, Kostan W. Reisinger, Pieter Joosse, Erik Tanis, Tim Schepers, first published in Foot & Ankle Specialist 2026;19(4):368–382, doi:10.1177/19386400241273105, PMID 39367857, PMC13323875. © 2024 The Author(s). It is used under the CC BY 4.0 licence.

Changes made:

The words, data, figures and conclusions are the authors’. Literature Decoded is not the publisher of record and does not claim endorsement by the authors or the journal. The version of record is the journal’s; cite it.

Licence statement in the article: “This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).”

Are you an author of this article? Claim it or ask us to take it down.

Cite this article

Living reprint · journal article