Skip to content

Intramedullary Nailing Versus Plate Fixation of Ankle Fractures. A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Intramedullary Nailing Versus Plate Fixation of Ankle Fractures.

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03377205
Enrollment
120
Registered
2017-12-19
Start date
2016-06-30
Completion date
2026-01-31
Last updated
2023-07-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Ankle Fractures

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to make a survey of functional outcome, radiological outcome and complication rate after intramedullary nailing (IMN) and plate fixation of Weber B ankle fractures in elderly patients, and contribute in choosing the best surgical method for these ankle fractures.

Detailed description

Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) is the gold standard treatment for unstable Weber B fractures, using compression screws and a neutralization plate. In the elderly, pre-existing co-morbidities, osteoporosis and poor skin conditions may give a high complication rate, including wound complications, symptomatic hardware and hardware failure. Due to concerns with complications related to ORIF, the technique with intramedullary fixation has been introduced. This method may simplify the management when poor skin conditions and osteoporotic bone, and has the potential to reduce the risk of soft tissue and hardware complications. Previous studies have showed that intramedullary fixation is probably the best choice for treating unstable ankle fractures in elderly patients, but more studies are needed to conclude the superiority to standard plate fixation.

Interventions

DEVICECompression screws and neutralization plate

Open reduction and internal fixation with screws and plate

DEVICEAcumed Fibular Rod System

intramedullary nailing of fibula

Sponsors

Ostfold Hospital Trust
CollaboratorOTHER
Vestre Viken Hospital Trust
CollaboratorOTHER
Oslo University Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
60 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Acute unstable Weber B fracture (unimalleolar, bimalleolar or trimalleolar fractures). * Operable with both methods of surgery within 3 weeks after injury. * Men and women ≥ 60 yoa.

Exclusion criteria

* Prior injury or pathology with reduced ankle function. * Other acute foot/ankle/leg injury that will affect ankle function. * Fracture of the posterior malleolus that need fixation. * Injury / pathology that may affect rehabilitation. * Open fracture. * Inoperable patient. * Dementia (MMSE score ≤ 24 points), reduced competent to consent, not able to express himself/herself in Norwegian or English.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score5 yearsFunctional outcome as assessed by AOFAS score (0-100)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Olerud and Molander Score (OMS)5 yearsPatient reported outcome as assessed by OMS (0-100)
EuroQol-5d (Eq-5d)5 yearsPatient reported quality of life as assessed by Eq-5d index score
Visual analogue scale (VAS)5 yearsVAS scores for pain during rest (0-10), during walking (0-10), at night (0-10), and during daily activities (0-10), where 10 is best
Fracture reduction as assessed by CT scans3 monthsNumber of patients with good, fair or poor fracture reduction
Malunion as assessed by CT scans5 yearsNumber of patients with malunion
Manchester-Oxford Foot questionnaire (MOxFQ)5 yearsPatient reported outcome as assessed by MOxFQ (0-100)
Osteoarthritis as assessed by CT scans5 yearsNumber of patients with osteoarthritis assessed according to the criteria by McLennan et al
Infection3 monthsNumber of patients with wound infection or deep infection
Delayed wound healing3 monthsNumber of patients with delayed wound healing
Other complications5 yearsNumber of patients with other complications (e.g. hardware complications, tromboemolism, neurologic complications, peroneus tendon irritation)
Nonunion as assessed by CT scans5 yearsNumber of patients with nonunion

Countries

Norway

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026