{Reference Type}: Comparative Study
{Title}: Clinical comparison of single-incision and dual-incision approaches for the treatment of distal tibial and fibular fractures: A randomized controlled trial.
{Author}: An L;Zhang J;Ma W;Zhu L;He X;Ying J;Zhuang Y;Zhuang Y;Yu T;
{Journal}: J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)
{Volume}: 28
{Issue}: 2
{Year}: Jan-Apr 2020
{Factor}: 1.482
{DOI}: 10.1177/2309499020930305
{Abstract}: 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.