Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of the characteristics among the groups of the new fracture line classification

From: A novel classification for medial malleolar fracture based on the 3-D reconstruction CT

Characteristics

Type 1 (N = 33, 12.1%)

Type 2 (N = 112, 41.0%)

Type 3 (N = 82, 30.0%)

Type 4 (N = 46, 16.8%)

Total (N = 273)

Significance (P)

Gender

Female

14 (42.4%)

58 (51.8%)

44 (53.7%)

24 (52.2%)

140 (51.3%)

0.742

Male

19 (57.6%)

54 (48.2%)

38 (46.3%)

22 (47.8%)

133 (48.7%)

Age (years)

44.4 ± 17.9

45.1 ± 16.4

49.0 ± 14.2

46.1 ± 14.8

46.4 ± 15.7

0.325

Mechanism of injury

Low energy

28 (84.8%)

92 (82.1%)

59 (72.0%)

37 (80.4%)

216 (79.1%)

0.275

High energy

5 (15.2%)

20 (17.9%)

23 (28.0%)

9 (19.6%)

57 (20.9%)

Lauge-Hansen classification

SE

30 (90.9%)

90 (80.4%)

52 (63.4%)

34 (73.9%)

206 (75.5%)

0.002*

SA

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

6 (7.3%)

0 (0%)

6 (2.2%)

PE

3 (9.1%)

22 (19.6%)

22 (26.8%)

12 (26.1%)

59 (21.6%)

PA

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (0.7%)

Danis-Weber classification

A

0 (0%)

2 (1.8%)

7 (8.5%)

1 (2.2%)

10 (3.7%)

0.012*

B

29 (87.9%)

87 (77.7%)

50 (61.0%)

30 (65.2%)

196 (71.8%)

C

4 (12.1%)

23 (20.5%)

25 (30.5%)

15 (32.6%)

67 (24.5%)

Modified Pankovich classification

B

32 (97.0%)

1 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

33 (12.1%)

<0.001*

C

1 (3.0%)

1 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

16 (34.8%)

18 (6.6%)

D

0 (0%)

110 (98.2%)

82 (100%)

30 (65.2%)

222 (81.3%)

Herscovici classification

B

28 (38.9%)

39 (34.8%)

2 (1.1%)

3 (6.5%)

72 (26.4%)

<0.001*

C

5 (15.2%)

73 (65.2%)

60 (73.2%)

14 (30.4%)

152 (55.7%)

D

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

20 (24.4%)

29 (63.0%)

49 (17.9%)

Anterior and posterior colliculus separation

No

3 (9.1%)

108 (96.4%)

77 (93.9%)

16 (34.8%)

204 (74.7%)

<0.001*

Yes

30 (90.9%)

4 (3.6%)

5 (6.1%)

30 (65.2%)

69 (25.3%)

Comminuted medial malleolus fracture

No

28 (84.8%)

95 (84.8%)

55 (67.1%)

11 (23.9%)

189 (69.2%)

<0.001*

Yes

5 (15.2%)

17 (15.2%)

27 (32.9%)

35 (76.1%)

84 (30.8%)

Distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury

No

26 (78.8%)

68 (60.7%)

45 (54.9%)

25 (54.3%)

164 (60.0%)

0.041*

Injury

6 (18.2%)

26 (23.2%)

19 (23.2%)

17 (37.0%)

68 (24.9%)

Separation

1 (3.0%)

18 (16.1%)

18 (21.9%)

4 (8.7%)

41 (15.0%)

Maisonneuve fracture

No

32 (97.0%)

107 (95.5%)

80 (97.6%)

45 (97.8%)

264 (96.7%)

0.836

Yes

1 (3.0%)

5 (4.5%)

2 (2.4%)

1 (2.2%)

9 (3.3%)

Lateral displacement of talus (mm)

6.9 ± 4.1

8.6 ± 5.8

9.0 ± 5.8

5.1 ± 3.4

7.9 ± 5.4

<0.001*

Joint surface involvement of distal tibial plafond

No

33 (100%)

106 (94.6%)

55 (67.1%)

17 (37.0%)

211 (77.3%)

<0.001*

Yes

0 (0%)

6 (5.4%)

27 (32.9%)

29 (63.0%)

62 (22.7%)

Angle between the major fracture line and distal tibial plafond (degree)

6.6 ± 12.1

16.3 ± 13.3

37.2 ± 17.0

55.0 ± 14.8

26.3 ± 21.0

<0.001*

Intraoperative surgical approach

Anterior- inferior

33 (100%)

112 (100%)

82 (100%)

35 (76.1%)

262 (96.0%)

<0.001*

Posterior-medial

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

11 (23.9%)

11 (4.0%)

Intraoperative medial malleolus fixation method

Lag screw

32 (97.0%)

109 (97.3%)

75 (91.5%)

25 (54.3%)

239 (88.3%)

<0.001*

Buttress plate

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

5 (6.1%)

16 (34.8%)

23 (7.7%)

K-wire

1 (3.0%)

3 (2.7%)

2 (2.4%)

5 (10.9%)

11 (4.0%)

Intraoperative tibiofibular syndesmosis repair

No

25 (80.6%)

83 (76.9%)

55 (67.9%)

29 (65.9%)

192 (72.7%)

0.274

Yes

6 (19.4%)

25 (23.1%)

26 (32.1%)

15 (34.1%)

72 (27.3%)

Intraoperative posterior malleoli management

No surgery

8 (25.8%)

44 (40.7%)

38 (47.0%)

2 (4.5%)

92 (34.9%)

<0.001*

Lag screw

14 (45.2%)

35 (32.4%)

26 (32.1%)

9 (20.5%)

84 (31.8%)

Buttress plate

9 (29%)

29 (26.9%)

17 (21.0%)

33 (75.0%)

88 (33.3%)

  1. *Statistically significant P < 0.05. SA supination-adduction, SE supination-external rotation, PA pronation-abduction, PE pronation-external rotation