%0 Comparative Study
%T Clinical comparison of single-incision and dual-incision approaches for the treatment of distal tibial and fibular fractures: A randomized controlled trial.
%A An L
%A Zhang J
%A Ma W
%A Zhu L
%A He X
%A Ying J
%A Zhuang Y
%A Zhuang Y
%A Yu T
%J J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)
%V 28
%N 2
%D Jan-Apr 2020
%M 32536316
%F 1.482
%R 10.1177/2309499020930305
%X The purpose of this study was to clinically compare the single-incision and dual-incision approaches for the treatment of distal tibial and fibular fractures.<BR>In total, 93 patients were enrolled, and the mean follow-up was 15 months (range 12-19 months). The patients treated for open reduction and internal fixation were randomly classified into two groups based on the approach used: 45 patients were treated using the single-incision approach (group 1) and 48 patients were treated using the dual-incision approach (group 2). In these two groups, operation time, discharge time, postoperative complications, and ankle function evaluations (Olerud-Molander Ankle Score) were compared between the two groups.<BR>There were no significant differences in the mean operation time (98.2 ± 18.5 vs. 103.6 ± 19.3), discharge time (11.1 ± 3.9 vs. 12.5 ± 5.7), overall surgical complication rates (9/45 vs. 15/48), or ankle function between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, the rate of soft tissue-related complications, such as skin slough, infection, nonunion, and delayed union, was significantly lower in group 1 (5/45) than in group 2 (14/48) (p < 0.05).<BR>The two incision approaches were found to have similar clinical outcomes. However, with regard to soft tissue conservation, the single-incision approach was superior to the dual-incision and maybe a reliable alternative.