Posterior Malleolus FracturesPMFIXNCT05413707
Weber B Ankle Fractures With Associated Posterior Malleolus Fracture
A study testing Fixation of the posterior malleolus fractures, Fixation of lateral and/or medial malleolus fractures and Syndesmotic fixation in people with Posterior Malleolus Fractures and Ankle Fractures, run by Haukeland University Hospital at 1 site in Norway.
Trial summary
Ankle fractures constitute 9% of all fractures and have an incidence of approximately 187 per 100,000 persons per year in Norway. A posterior malleolar fragment (PMF), located on the lower backside of the tibia, is present in up to 46% of Weber B. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Posterior Malleolus Fractures, Ankle Fractures, Syndesmotic Injuries
- What is being tested?
- Fixation of the posterior malleolus fractures, Fixation of lateral and/or medial malleolus fractures and Syndesmotic fixation
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 198 participants
- Where
- 1 siteNorway
- Study dates
- 13 Mar 2023to 31 Dec 2030
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Posterior malleolar (PM) fracture, of Mason \& Molly type 2A/2B, associated with Weber B lateral malleolar fracture, with or without medial malleolar fracture
- Posterior malleoli >=2 mm displaced (on CT in axial, sagital or coronal plane)
- Patients informed, written consent
- Age 18-65 years
- For inclusion axial CT images are examined
- Measurements are performed 5 millimeters (mm) cranial to the tibia plafond
- Posterior malleolus fractures involving less than 40% of the fibular notch are included.
Who cannot join
- Non-compliant patient, i.e.: dementia, alcohol- or substance abuse
- ASA-4 patients
- Known congenital bone decease
- Pathological fractures
- Immunocompromised patients
- Tourists or patients on a short-term work/study permit
Show all 12Show fewer
- Previous injury or condition of the ipsilateral ankle or ipsilateral lower extremity with a resulting dysfunction
- Poor controlled diabetes
- Patients with known arterial insufficiency
- Open fractures
- Severely traumatized patients (ISS>16)
- Patient declines to participate in study
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
Norway1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Haukeland University Hospital, Orthopedic department
Bergen, Vestland, 5021
Jostein S Nilsen, MD, +4792226426, j.skorpa@gmail.com
Kristian Pilskog, MD, +4798217343, kpilskog@gmail.com
About this study
Official title: Posterior Malleolus Fractures (PMF) in Weber B Ankle Fractures - Fixation Versus no Fixation - a Randomized Controlled Trial
Ankle fractures constitute 9% of all fractures and have an incidence of approximately 187 per 100,000 persons per year in Norway. A posterior malleolar fragment (PMF), located on the lower backside of the tibia, is present in up to 46% of Weber B. Weber B fractures are the most common type of fractures of the fibula, located at the height of the syndesmosis. Patients with a PMF were recently shown to have significantly lower patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) than the general population. For this reason, the indication and choice of intervention for these fractures have been the object of increased interest over the recent years. It is one of the most debated areas within ankle fracture surgery. Traditionally, these PMFs have been treated with closed reduction, without direct manipulation of the PMF, anteroposterior screw fixation, or even no-fixation of the smaller fragments. A more novel posterior approach to the ankle for open reduction and internal fixation is increasingly popular and has led to fixation of smaller and medium-sized PMFs. Studies suggest fracture reduction is better with a posterior approach. However, there is no consensus as to what the best treatment is. There are no available randomized controlled studies examining PROM in patients after surgery with fixation versus no fixation for the PMF.
Through a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial initiated from Haukeland University Hospital, patients will be recruited and randomized to receive treatment with or without fixation of the PMF. Patients will be recruited at six study hospitals from all Regional Health Trusts in Norway. Treatment today is often based on local tradition and retrospective, ambiguous literature. As there is no clear evidence supporting the choice to fixate, or not fixate, the posterior malleolus fracture. The current study can contribute new knowledge and thereby contribute to an evidence-based approach to treating these patients.
Mason and Molly type 2A and 2B fractures will be included in the study.
Read the detailed description
Ankle fractures constitute 9% of all fractures and have an incidence of approximately 187 per 100,000 persons per year in Norway. Weber B fractures are the most common type of fracture of the fibula. A posterior malleolar fragment (PMF) is present in up to 46% of Weber B and Weber C fractures. Patients with a PMF were recently shown to have significantly lower patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) than the general population. Clinical outcome for ankle fractures with a PMF is known to be poor from several studies. For this reason, the indication and choice of intervention for these fractures have been the object of increased interest over the recent years. It is one of the most debated areas within ankle fracture surgery. Traditionally, PMFs have been treated with closed reduction, without direct manipulation of the PMF, and anteroposterior screw fixation, or even no-fixation of the smaller fragments. A more novel posterior approach to the ankle for open reduction and internal fixation is increasingly popular and has led to fixation of smaller and medium-sized PMFs.
The reason for focusing on the posterior approach is new knowledge that intraarticular step-off in the tibiotalar joint and malreduced syndesmosis is associated with poor outcomes. Studies suggest fracture reduction is better with a posterior approach. However, there is no consensus as to what the best treatment is. Pilskog et. al. published a retrospective study in Nov. 2020 where patients without fixation reported similar PROM to patients with fixation. Most studies are retrospective and with a variable number of patients without a reasonable conclusion as to what is best practice. A few prospective studies are published. But there are no available randomized controlled studies examining PROM in patients after surgery with fixation versus no fixation for the PMF.
Through a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial initiated from Haukeland University Hospital, patients with Weber B fracture and associated PMF (with or without a medial malleolus fracture) will be recruited and randomized to receive treatment with or without fixation of the PMF. Patients will be recruited at seven study hospitals from all Regional Health Trusts in Norway.
Mason and Molly type 2A and 2B fractures will be included in the study. Type 2 fractures are medium-sized fractures of the posterior malleolus which involve the fibular incisura. The fractures are classified as type 2A if only the posterior malleolus is fractured and as type 2B if there are two posterior fragments of the tibia in which the medial fragment extends to and involves the medial malleolus.
The lack of consensus on best practice is of great concern as patients of all ages are affected. In a retrospective study examining the patient-reported outcome of 130 patients with a PMF, 75% were aged 67 or younger. Such an injury, therefore, affects patients with many active years left in both their working life and daily activities. Interviews with the patient representative and with patients at the outpatient clinic reveal a long time for rehabilitation, over 16-18 months until 100% working ability. The patients also talk about the need to change working tasks due to reduced range of motion and pain. The study will not only answer the best way to treat the PMFs, but also give insights into the impact on the patient's life through the use of sick leave, treatment of the ankle syndesmosis, and complication rates. The aim is to give the patients the best possible treatment for better recovery and function.
The main aim of the study is to compare PROM in patients who had fixation of the PMF with patients without PMF fixation with the intention to define what is the best surgical approach and treatment of the fractures in question.
The null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference in mean patient-reported outcome (Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score, SEFAS) in patients treated with fixation of the PMF and patients treated without fixation of the PMF.
The intention is to deliver treatment recommendations based on the study results. The results will thus have direct consequences for both patients and orthopedic surgeons.
Additional aims:
- Publish treatment recommendations for ankle fractures including a PMF
- Sub-analysis of patients with and without syndesmotic injury
- Publish complication rates in the different treatment groups
- Health economic impact of ankle fractures
- Report rate of posttraumatic osteoarthritis after 2 and 5 years
The primary outcome is the summary score of Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) at 2 years.
Project methodology:
Patients will be prospectively recruited from all six participating hospitals. An estimated 275 patients with ankle fractures per year will be eligible for inclusion. The investigators aim to include 208 patients over two years. Data are collected and stored by using Viedoc as the electronic case report form (eCRF). Patients will be treated according to randomization and data will be collected at each study site, stored via Viedoc, and sent to Haukeland University Hospital for analysis. Randomization is performed using Viedoc without interference from the surgeon on call. The last follow-up will be 5 years postoperative. Local coordinators at each hospital will manage inclusion and ensure correct treatment according to protocol.
The primary outcome of the mean difference between groups will be analyzed with an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with SEFAS at two years with baseline as covariate. Change in SEFAS over time (3 months - 1 year - 2 years - 5 years) will be analyzed with linear mixed effect models. The use of ANCOVA with adjusting for PROM at baseline (inclusion) is unique in orthopedic trauma studies as most studies report solely 1- or 2- year results with differences in mean values between groups. Adjusting for baseline will strengthen the analysis.
The Student t-test for continuous variables and chi-squared test for categorical variables will be used.
A power of 90% with a priori significance level of 0.05 requires 86 patients in each arm of randomization. A difference between groups of five points is considered to be a clinically relevant difference. Accounting for 20% lost to follow-up or dropout, 104 patients will be included in each group. The total number of patients will be 208.
NorCRIN will be used as a national monitoring service via Viedoc and Anne Mathilde Henden Kvamme.
Helse Bergen HF, Haukeland University Hospital, will be the coordinator of the project. All four regional health trusts in Norway are involved in this project. There will be responsible local coordinators for the study at the seven sites represented. The local coordinators are responsible for developing and coordinating the study and communicating with the project leaders and main coordinators.
Ethical considerations None of the surgical methods can be considered experimental as they are in conventional use at the study clinics and several other level 1 trauma centers. Participation in the study will not cause any delay in treatment compared to conventional care, nor will patients have any extra expenses related to follow-up evaluation. Patients having any concerns throughout the study period will be offered an extra follow-up by one of the participating surgeons.
As there is no clear evidence supporting the choice to fixate, or not fixate, the posterior malleolus fracture, the study can contribute new knowledge thereby contributing to a more evidence-based approach to treating these patients.
The project is approved by the Helse Bergen Data Protection Officer and Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REC). REC ref.nr: 255548. Patients will have to give their written, informed consent prior to inclusion in the study.
- Conditions
- Posterior Malleolus Fractures, Ankle Fractures, Syndesmotic Injuries, Patient Reported Outcome Measure, Treatment Outcome
- Being tested
- Fixation of the posterior malleolus fractures, Fixation of lateral and/or medial malleolus fractures, Syndesmotic fixation
- Keywords
- Posterior malleolus fractures, Ankle factures, Weber B fractures, Syndesmotic injuries, Fixation, Randomized Controlled Trial
- Medical subject headings
- Ankle Fractures, Ankle Injuries
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Fixation of the posterior malleolus fracturesProcedure or surgery
Fixation of the posterior malleolus fracture with screws and or plating.
Fixation of lateral and/or medial malleolus fracturesProcedure or surgery
Fixation with screws and/or plating
Syndesmotic fixationProcedure or surgery
Fixation of unstable syndesmosis with one or two 3.5 mm tricortical screws, or with a suture button.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Fixation group | Experimental | Patients are placed in a prone position on the operating table. Fixation of the posterior malleolus fracture. Posterior, and/or lateral and medial malleolus fractures will be treated with open reduction and internal fixation. ORIF of the posteromedial fragment in Mason and Molloy type 2B with one or more screws, or plate, if it is displaced more than 2 mm. Deltoid ligament injuries are repaired if incarcerated between medial malleolus and talus. The posteromedial fragment in Mason and Molloy type 2B will be fixed with one or more screws, or plate, if this fragment is displaced more than 2 mm. A Tillaux-Chaput or Wagstaffe fragment is fixed with suture anchor, plate, screw or pin if displaced >2 mm depending on size and comminution of the fragment.
The syndesmosis is tested under fluoroscopy by lateralizing and then externally rotating the talus. If unstable it is fixed with one or two 3.5 mm cortical screws or a suture button. Receives: Procedure: Fixation of the posterior malleolus fractures; Procedure: Fixation of lateral and/or medial malleolus fractures; Procedure: Syndesmotic fixation |
| Non-fixation group | Active comparator | Patients are placed in a supine position on the operating table. No fixation of the PMF. The PMF is reduced by ligamentotaxis. Lateral and/or medial malleolus fractures will be treated with ORIF if present.
ORIF of the posteromedial fragment in Mason and Molloy type 2B with one or more screws, or plate, if it is displaced more than 2 mm.
Deltoid ligament injuries are repaired if incarcerated between medial malleolus and talus.
A Tillaux-Chaput or Wagstaffe fragment is fixed with suture anchor, plate, screw or pin if displaced >2 mm depending on size and comminution of the fragment.
The syndesmosis is tested under fluoroscopy by lateralizing and then externally rotating the talus. If unstable it is fixed with one or two 3.5 mm cortical screws or a suturebutton. Receives: Procedure: Fixation of lateral and/or medial malleolus fractures; Procedure: Syndesmotic fixation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score
Foot and ankle specific questionnaire with 12 questions with 5 levels. Total score from 0 (worst) to 48 (best).
Measured: 2 years postoperatively
Secondary outcomes (5)
EQ-5D 5L
Generic patient reported outcome questionnaire, Presentation of both change from baseline to 12 weeks, 1 year, 2, years and 5 years postoperatively. Presentation of both EQ-5D-5L frequencies and proportions reported by dimension and level, EQ-5D VAS, and EQ-5D index score.
Measured: Baseline, 12 weeks, 1 year, 2 years and 5 years postoperatively
VAS of stiffness (0-100)
Level of stiffness in the treated ankle from 0 (No stiffness) to 100 (No movement due to stiffness)
Measured: 12 weeks, 1 year, 2 years and 5 years postoperatively
Osteoarthritis
Osteoarthritis on plain radiographs at 2- and 5-years postoperative graded by the Kellgren Lawrence classification
Measured: 2 years and 5 years postoperatively
Dorsiflexion
- Dorsiflexion measured by goniometer
- With knee in flexion and the foot on the floor. The patient leans forward as far as possible without the heel lifting. The angle between the floor and the anterior boarder of the tibia is measured with a digital goniometer.
Measured: 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 2 years postoperatively
Change in Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS)
Foot and ankle specific questionnaire with 12 questions with 5 levels. Total score from 0 (worst) to 48 (best).
Measured: Baseline, 12 weeks, 1 year, and 5 years postoperatively
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Jun 2022
- Study start13 Mar 2023
- Primary completion31 Dec 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Dec 2030 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (28)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Posterior Malleolus FracturesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Haukeland University HospitalThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Randomized controlled trial with to arms: Fixation of posterior malleolus fractures (PMFs) versus no fixation of the PMF.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 198 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Haukeland University Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University Hospital, Akershus, Ullevaal University Hospital, Helse Stavanger HF, Alesund Hospital, Ostfold Hospital Trust, St. Olavs Hospital, Helgeland Hospital Trust
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Jonas M Fevang, PhD, Study director, Helse Bergen, Haukeland University HospitalJostein S Nilsen, MD, Principal investigator, Helse Bergen, Haukeland University HospitalKristian Pilskog, MD, Principal investigator, Helse Bergen, Haukeland University Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05413707
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 255548
- Acronym
- PMFIX
- Status last verified
- Feb 2024
- First submitted
- 24 May 2022
- Last updated
- 29 Feb 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Bartonicek J, Rammelt S, Kostlivy K, Vanecek V, Klika D, Tresl I. Anatomy and classification of the posterior tibial fragment in ankle fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Apr;135(4):505-16. doi: 10.1007/s00402-015-2171-4. Epub 2015 Feb 24.
PubMed 25708027Pilskog K, Gote TB, Odland HEJ, Fjeldsgaard KA, Dale H, Inderhaug E, Fevang JM. Traditional Approach vs Posterior Approach for Ankle Fractures Involving the Posterior Malleolus. Foot Ankle Int. 2021 Apr;42(4):389-399. doi: 10.1177/1071100720969431. Epub 2020 Nov 17.
PubMed 33203272Coster MC, Rosengren BE, Karlsson MK, Carlsson A. Age- and Gender-Specific Normative Values for the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS). Foot Ankle Int. 2018 Nov;39(11):1328-1334. doi: 10.1177/1071100718788499. Epub 2018 Jul 23.
PubMed 30035614Stufkens SA, van den Bekerom MP, Kerkhoffs GM, Hintermann B, van Dijk CN. Long-term outcome after 1822 operatively treated ankle fractures: a systematic review of the literature. Injury. 2011 Feb;42(2):119-27. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.04.006. No abstract available.
PubMed 20444447Mason LW, Kaye A, Widnall J, Redfern J, Molloy A. Posterior Malleolar Ankle Fractures: An Effort at Improving Outcomes. JB JS Open Access. 2019 Jun 7;4(2):e0058. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00058. eCollection 2019 Apr-Jun.
PubMed 31334465Mingo-Robinet J, Lopez-Duran L, Galeote JE, Martinez-Cervell C. Ankle fractures with posterior malleolar fragment: management and results. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2011 Mar-Apr;50(2):141-5. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2010.12.013.
PubMed 21353996Hoogendoorn JM. Posterior Malleolar Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Through a Posterolateral Approach for Trimalleolar Fractures. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2017 Oct 25;7(4):e31. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.17.00016. eCollection 2017 Dec 28.
PubMed 30233966Gandham S, Millward G, Molloy AP, Mason LW. Posterior malleolar fractures: A CT guided incision analysis. Foot (Edinb). 2020 Jun;43:101662. doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2019.101662. Epub 2019 Dec 30.
PubMed 32086138Tornetta P 3rd, Ricci W, Nork S, Collinge C, Steen B. The posterolateral approach to the tibia for displaced posterior malleolar injuries. J Orthop Trauma. 2011 Feb;25(2):123-6. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181e47d29.
PubMed 21245717Verhage SM, Boot F, Schipper IB, Hoogendoorn JM. Open reduction and internal fixation of posterior malleolar fractures using the posterolateral approach. Bone Joint J. 2016 Jun;98-B(6):812-7. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B6.36497.
PubMed 27235525Miller AN, Carroll EA, Parker RJ, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. Posterior malleolar stabilization of syndesmotic injuries is equivalent to screw fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Apr;468(4):1129-35. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1111-4. Epub 2009 Oct 2.
PubMed 19798540Gardner MJ, Brodsky A, Briggs SM, Nielson JH, Lorich DG. Fixation of posterior malleolar fractures provides greater syndesmotic stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jun;447:165-71. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000203489.21206.a9.
PubMed 16467626Tosun B, Selek O, Gok U, Ceylan H. Posterior Malleolus Fractures in Trimalleolar Ankle Fractures: Malleolus versus Transyndesmal Fixation. Indian J Orthop. 2018 May-Jun;52(3):309-314. doi: 10.4103/ortho.IJOrtho_308_16.
PubMed 29887634Hermans JJ, Beumer A, de Jong TA, Kleinrensink GJ. Anatomy of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis in adults: a pictorial essay with a multimodality approach. J Anat. 2010 Dec;217(6):633-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2010.01302.x.
PubMed 21108526Jayatilaka MLT, Philpott MDG, Fisher A, Fisher L, Molloy A, Mason L. Anatomy of the Insertion of the Posterior Inferior Tibiofibular Ligament and the Posterior Malleolar Fracture. Foot Ankle Int. 2019 Nov;40(11):1319-1324. doi: 10.1177/1071100719865896. Epub 2019 Aug 8.
PubMed 31390895
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 29 Feb 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Posterior Malleolus Fractures (PMF) in Weber B Ankle Fractures - Fixation Versus no Fixation - a Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05413707
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PMFIX / 255548
- Conditions
- Posterior Malleolus Fractures, Ankle Fractures, Syndesmotic Injuries, Patient Reported Outcome Measure, Treatment Outcome
- Keywords
- Posterior malleolus fractures, Ankle factures, Weber B fractures, Syndesmotic injuries, Fixation, Randomized Controlled Trial
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 198 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Haukeland University HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University Hospital, Akershus, Ullevaal University Hospital, Helse Stavanger HF, Alesund Hospital, Ostfold Hospital Trust, St. Olavs Hospital, Helgeland Hospital Trust
- Study start
- 13 Mar 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2030 (estimated)
- First posted
- 10 Jun 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Ankle fractures constitute 9% of all fractures and have an incidence of approximately 187 per 100,000 persons per year in Norway. A posterior malleolar fragment (PMF), located on the lower backside of the tibia, is present in up to 46% of Weber B. Weber B fractures are the most common type of fractures of the fibula, located at the height of the syndesmosis. Patients with a PMF were recently shown to have significantly lower patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) than the general population. For this reason, the indication and choice of intervention for these fractures have been the object of increased interest over the recent years. It is one of the most debated areas within ankle fracture surgery. Traditionally, these PMFs have been treated with closed reduction, without direct manipulation of the PMF, anteroposterior screw fixation, or even no-fixation of the smaller fragments. A more novel posterior approach to the ankle for open reduction and internal fixation is increasingly popular and has led to fixation of smaller and medium-sized PMFs. Studies suggest fracture reduction is better with a posterior approach. However, there is no consensus as to what the best treatment is. There are no available randomized controlled studies examining PROM in patients after surgery with fixation versus no fixation for the PMF.
Through a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial initiated from Haukeland University Hospital, patients will be recruited and randomized to receive treatment with or without fixation of the PMF. Patients will be recruited at six study hospitals from all Regional Health Trusts in Norway. Treatment today is often based on local tradition and retrospective, ambiguous literature. As there is no clear evidence supporting the choice to fixate, or not fixate, the posterior malleolus fracture. The current study can contribute new knowledge and thereby contribute to an evidence-based approach to treating these patients.
Mason and Molly type 2A and 2B fractures will be included in the study.
Detailed description
Ankle fractures constitute 9% of all fractures and have an incidence of approximately 187 per 100,000 persons per year in Norway. Weber B fractures are the most common type of fracture of the fibula. A posterior malleolar fragment (PMF) is present in up to 46% of Weber B and Weber C fractures. Patients with a PMF were recently shown to have significantly lower patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) than the general population. Clinical outcome for ankle fractures with a PMF is known to be poor from several studies. For this reason, the indication and choice of intervention for these fractures have been the object of increased interest over the recent years. It is one of the most debated areas within ankle fracture surgery. Traditionally, PMFs have been treated with closed reduction, without direct manipulation of the PMF, and anteroposterior screw fixation, or even no-fixation of the smaller fragments. A more novel posterior approach to the ankle for open reduction and internal fixation is increasingly popular and has led to fixation of smaller and medium-sized PMFs.
The reason for focusing on the posterior approach is new knowledge that intraarticular step-off in the tibiotalar joint and malreduced syndesmosis is associated with poor outcomes. Studies suggest fracture reduction is better with a posterior approach. However, there is no consensus as to what the best treatment is. Pilskog et. al. published a retrospective study in Nov. 2020 where patients without fixation reported similar PROM to patients with fixation. Most studies are retrospective and with a variable number of patients without a reasonable conclusion as to what is best practice. A few prospective studies are published. But there are no available randomized controlled studies examining PROM in patients after surgery with fixation versus no fixation for the PMF.
Through a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial initiated from Haukeland University Hospital, patients with Weber B fracture and associated PMF (with or without a medial malleolus fracture) will be recruited and randomized to receive treatment with or without fixation of the PMF. Patients will be recruited at seven study hospitals from all Regional Health Trusts in Norway.
Mason and Molly type 2A and 2B fractures will be included in the study. Type 2 fractures are medium-sized fractures of the posterior malleolus which involve the fibular incisura. The fractures are classified as type 2A if only the posterior malleolus is fractured and as type 2B if there are two posterior fragments of the tibia in which the medial fragment extends to and involves the medial malleolus.
The lack of consensus on best practice is of great concern as patients of all ages are affected. In a retrospective study examining the patient-reported outcome of 130 patients with a PMF, 75% were aged 67 or younger. Such an injury, therefore, affects patients with many active years left in both their working life and daily activities. Interviews with the patient representative and with patients at the outpatient clinic reveal a long time for rehabilitation, over 16-18 months until 100% working ability. The patients also talk about the need to change working tasks due to reduced range of motion and pain. The study will not only answer the best way to treat the PMFs, but also give insights into the impact on the patient's life through the use of sick leave, treatment of the ankle syndesmosis, and complication rates. The aim is to give the patients the best possible treatment for better recovery and function.
The main aim of the study is to compare PROM in patients who had fixation of the PMF with patients without PMF fixation with the intention to define what is the best surgical approach and treatment of the fractures in question.
The null hypothesis (H0): There is no difference in mean patient-reported outcome (Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score, SEFAS) in patients treated with fixation of the PMF and patients treated without fixation of the PMF.
The intention is to deliver treatment recommendations based on the study results. The results will thus have direct consequences for both patients and orthopedic surgeons.
Additional aims:
- Publish treatment recommendations for ankle fractures including a PMF
- Sub-analysis of patients with and without syndesmotic injury
- Publish complication rates in the different treatment groups
- Health economic impact of ankle fractures
- Report rate of posttraumatic osteoarthritis after 2 and 5 years
The primary outcome is the summary score of Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) at 2 years.
Project methodology:
Patients will be prospectively recruited from all six participating hospitals. An estimated 275 patients with ankle fractures per year will be eligible for inclusion. The investigators aim to include 208 patients over two years. Data are collected and stored by using Viedoc as the electronic case report form (eCRF). Patients will be treated according to randomization and data will be collected at each study site, stored via Viedoc, and sent to Haukeland University Hospital for analysis. Randomization is performed using Viedoc without interference from the surgeon on call. The last follow-up will be 5 years postoperative. Local coordinators at each hospital will manage inclusion and ensure correct treatment according to protocol.
The primary outcome of the mean difference between groups will be analyzed with an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with SEFAS at two years with baseline as covariate. Change in SEFAS over time (3 months - 1 year - 2 years - 5 years) will be analyzed with linear mixed effect models. The use of ANCOVA with adjusting for PROM at baseline (inclusion) is unique in orthopedic trauma studies as most studies report solely 1- or 2- year results with differences in mean values between groups. Adjusting for baseline will strengthen the analysis.
The Student t-test for continuous variables and chi-squared test for categorical variables will be used.
A power of 90% with a priori significance level of 0.05 requires 86 patients in each arm of randomization. A difference between groups of five points is considered to be a clinically relevant difference. Accounting for 20% lost to follow-up or dropout, 104 patients will be included in each group. The total number of patients will be 208.
NorCRIN will be used as a national monitoring service via Viedoc and Anne Mathilde Henden Kvamme.
Helse Bergen HF, Haukeland University Hospital, will be the coordinator of the project. All four regional health trusts in Norway are involved in this project. There will be responsible local coordinators for the study at the seven sites represented. The local coordinators are responsible for developing and coordinating the study and communicating with the project leaders and main coordinators.
Ethical considerations None of the surgical methods can be considered experimental as they are in conventional use at the study clinics and several other level 1 trauma centers. Participation in the study will not cause any delay in treatment compared to conventional care, nor will patients have any extra expenses related to follow-up evaluation. Patients having any concerns throughout the study period will be offered an extra follow-up by one of the participating surgeons.
As there is no clear evidence supporting the choice to fixate, or not fixate, the posterior malleolus fracture, the study can contribute new knowledge thereby contributing to a more evidence-based approach to treating these patients.
The project is approved by the Helse Bergen Data Protection Officer and Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REC). REC ref.nr: 255548. Patients will have to give their written, informed consent prior to inclusion in the study.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- Randomized controlled trial with to arms: Fixation of posterior malleolus fractures (PMFs) versus no fixation of the PMF.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Fixation group | Experimental | Procedure: Fixation of the posterior malleolus fractures, Procedure: Fixation of lateral and/or medial malleolus fractures, Procedure: Syndesmotic fixationPatients are placed in a prone position on the operating table. Fixation of the posterior malleolus fracture. Posterior, and/or lateral and medial malleolus fractures will be treated with open reduction and internal fixation. ORIF of the posteromedial fragment in Mason and Molloy type 2B with one or more screws, or plate, if it is displaced more than 2 mm. Deltoid ligament injuries are repaired if incarcerated between medial malleolus and talus. The posteromedial fragment in Mason and Molloy type 2B will be fixed with one or more screws, or plate, if this fragment is displaced more than 2 mm. A Tillaux-Chaput or Wagstaffe fragment is fixed with suture anchor, plate, screw or pin if displaced >2 mm depending on size and comminution of the fragment. The syndesmosis is tested under fluoroscopy by lateralizing and then externally rotating the talus. If unstable it is fixed with one or two 3.5 mm cortical screws or a suture button. |
| Non-fixation group | Active comparator | Procedure: Fixation of lateral and/or medial malleolus fractures, Procedure: Syndesmotic fixationPatients are placed in a supine position on the operating table. No fixation of the PMF. The PMF is reduced by ligamentotaxis. Lateral and/or medial malleolus fractures will be treated with ORIF if present. ORIF of the posteromedial fragment in Mason and Molloy type 2B with one or more screws, or plate, if it is displaced more than 2 mm. Deltoid ligament injuries are repaired if incarcerated between medial malleolus and talus. A Tillaux-Chaput or Wagstaffe fragment is fixed with suture anchor, plate, screw or pin if displaced >2 mm depending on size and comminution of the fragment. The syndesmosis is tested under fluoroscopy by lateralizing and then externally rotating the talus. If unstable it is fixed with one or two 3.5 mm cortical screws or a suturebutton. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Posterior malleolar (PM) fracture, of Mason \& Molly type 2A/2B, associated with Weber B lateral malleolar fracture, with or without medial malleolar fracture
- Posterior malleoli >=2 mm displaced (on CT in axial, sagital or coronal plane)
- Patients informed, written consent
- Age 18-65 years
- For inclusion axial CT images are examined
Key exclusion criteria (12 listed)
- Non-compliant patient, i.e.: dementia, alcohol- or substance abuse
- ASA-4 patients
- Known congenital bone decease
- Pathological fractures
- Immunocompromised patients
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Fixation of the posterior malleolus fracturesFixation of the posterior malleolus fracture with screws and or plating. | Procedure or surgery | Fixation group |
| Fixation of lateral and/or medial malleolus fracturesFixation with screws and/or plating | Procedure or surgery | Fixation group, Non-fixation group |
| Syndesmotic fixationFixation of unstable syndesmosis with one or two 3.5 mm tricortical screws, or with a suture button. | Procedure or surgery | Fixation group, Non-fixation group |
Primary outcome
Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score
Time frame: 2 years postoperatively
Foot and ankle specific questionnaire with 12 questions with 5 levels. Total score from 0 (worst) to 48 (best).
5 secondary outcomes
EQ-5D 5L
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks, 1 year, 2 years and 5 years postoperatively
VAS of stiffness (0-100)
Time frame: 12 weeks, 1 year, 2 years and 5 years postoperatively
Osteoarthritis
Time frame: 2 years and 5 years postoperatively
Dorsiflexion
Time frame: 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 2 years postoperatively
Change in Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS)
Time frame: Baseline, 12 weeks, 1 year, and 5 years postoperatively
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 29 Feb 2024.
- Background: PubMed 25708027Bartonicek J, Rammelt S, Kostlivy K, Vanecek V, Klika D, Tresl I. Anatomy and classification of the posterior tibial fragment in ankle fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Apr;135(4):505-16. doi: 10.1007/s00402-015-2171-4. Epub 2015 Feb 24.
- Background: PubMed 33203272Pilskog K, Gote TB, Odland HEJ, Fjeldsgaard KA, Dale H, Inderhaug E, Fevang JM. Traditional Approach vs Posterior Approach for Ankle Fractures Involving the Posterior Malleolus. Foot Ankle Int. 2021 Apr;42(4):389-399. doi: 10.1177/1071100720969431. Epub 2020 Nov 17.
- Background: PubMed 30035614Coster MC, Rosengren BE, Karlsson MK, Carlsson A. Age- and Gender-Specific Normative Values for the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS). Foot Ankle Int. 2018 Nov;39(11):1328-1334. doi: 10.1177/1071100718788499. Epub 2018 Jul 23.
- Background: PubMed 20444447Stufkens SA, van den Bekerom MP, Kerkhoffs GM, Hintermann B, van Dijk CN. Long-term outcome after 1822 operatively treated ankle fractures: a systematic review of the literature. Injury. 2011 Feb;42(2):119-27. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.04.006. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 31334465Mason LW, Kaye A, Widnall J, Redfern J, Molloy A. Posterior Malleolar Ankle Fractures: An Effort at Improving Outcomes. JB JS Open Access. 2019 Jun 7;4(2):e0058. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00058. eCollection 2019 Apr-Jun.
- Background: PubMed 21353996Mingo-Robinet J, Lopez-Duran L, Galeote JE, Martinez-Cervell C. Ankle fractures with posterior malleolar fragment: management and results. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2011 Mar-Apr;50(2):141-5. doi: 10.1053/j.jfas.2010.12.013.
- Background: PubMed 30233966Hoogendoorn JM. Posterior Malleolar Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Through a Posterolateral Approach for Trimalleolar Fractures. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2017 Oct 25;7(4):e31. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.17.00016. eCollection 2017 Dec 28.
- Background: PubMed 32086138Gandham S, Millward G, Molloy AP, Mason LW. Posterior malleolar fractures: A CT guided incision analysis. Foot (Edinb). 2020 Jun;43:101662. doi: 10.1016/j.foot.2019.101662. Epub 2019 Dec 30.
- Background: PubMed 21245717Tornetta P 3rd, Ricci W, Nork S, Collinge C, Steen B. The posterolateral approach to the tibia for displaced posterior malleolar injuries. J Orthop Trauma. 2011 Feb;25(2):123-6. doi: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181e47d29.
- Background: PubMed 27235525Verhage SM, Boot F, Schipper IB, Hoogendoorn JM. Open reduction and internal fixation of posterior malleolar fractures using the posterolateral approach. Bone Joint J. 2016 Jun;98-B(6):812-7. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B6.36497.
- Background: PubMed 19798540Miller AN, Carroll EA, Parker RJ, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. Posterior malleolar stabilization of syndesmotic injuries is equivalent to screw fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Apr;468(4):1129-35. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1111-4. Epub 2009 Oct 2.
- Background: PubMed 16467626Gardner MJ, Brodsky A, Briggs SM, Nielson JH, Lorich DG. Fixation of posterior malleolar fractures provides greater syndesmotic stability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jun;447:165-71. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000203489.21206.a9.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Posterior Malleolus Fractures
Active, not recruiting
Single-Window Versus Two-Window Posterolateral Approach for Malleolar Fractures
Ankle Fractures, Posterior Malleolus Fractures
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Jonas M Fevang, PhD study director
Helse Bergen, Haukeland University Hospital
Jostein S Nilsen, MD principal investigator
Helse Bergen, Haukeland University Hospital
Kristian Pilskog, MD principal investigator
Helse Bergen, Haukeland University Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Fixation of the posterior malleolus fractures, Fixation of lateral and/or medial malleolus fractures and Syndesmotic fixation in people with Posterior Malleolus Fractures and Ankle Fractures, run by Haukeland University Hospital at 1 site in Norway.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 7 inclusion and 12 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 29 Feb 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Norway. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Jostein S Nilsen, MD (004792226426, jostein.skorpa.nilsen@helse-bergen.no), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score (time frame: 2 years postoperatively). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05413707, which also lists 28 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 29 Feb 2024.