The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study: a national multicentre retrospective review of practice in implant choice, fixation methods, and outcomes in fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures
Aims: In fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures, the AO Foundation advocates using a lag screw and one-third tubular neutralization plate for simple patterns. Where a lag screw cannot be placed, bridging fixation is required. A local pilot service evaluation previously identified variance in use...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | Bone & Joint Open |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/epdf/10.1302/2633-1462.67.BJO-2025-0009.R1 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849245404604923904 |
|---|---|
| author | William G. Fishley Thomas Baldock Alan J. Hilley Rory Morrison Paul Baker Dave Townshend FAIR Study Collaborating Authors |
| author_facet | William G. Fishley Thomas Baldock Alan J. Hilley Rory Morrison Paul Baker Dave Townshend FAIR Study Collaborating Authors |
| author_sort | William G. Fishley |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Aims: In fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures, the AO Foundation advocates using a lag screw and one-third tubular neutralization plate for simple patterns. Where a lag screw cannot be placed, bridging fixation is required. A local pilot service evaluation previously identified variance in use of locking plates in all patterns with significant cost implications. The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study aimed to evaluate current practice and implant use across the UK, and review outcomes and complication rates between different fibula fixation methods. Methods: The study was supported by CORNET, the North East orthopaedic trainee research collaborative, and the British Orthopaedic Trainee Association (BOTA). Data were collected using REDCap software from 22 centres in the UK retrospectively for a one-year period between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019 on injury mechanism, fracture characteristics, comorbidities, fixation, and complications. Follow-up data were collected to at least two years from surgery. Results: A total of 1,471 ankle fractures which involved fixation of the fibula were analyzed; a one-third tubular plate was used in 883 cases (59.7%), a locking plate in 470 cases (31.8%), and other methods in 118 cases (8.1%). There was significant difference between centres (p < 0.001) in terms of the implant type which was used. Other factors associated with implant type were age, diabetes, osteoporosis, open fractures, and comminuted fractures. Incidence of lateral wound breakdown and infection was higher in locking plates than one-third tubular plates (Lateral wound breakdown p = 0.008, Infection p = 0.039) in AO44B fractures. There was no significant difference in nonunion, fixation failure, or removal of metalware. Conclusion: There is significant variation in practice in the UK in implant use for fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures. If a locking plate is used unnecessarily, where a one-third tubular shows equivalent outcomes, this incurs additional cost and may increase the risk of lateral wound complications. We would encourage surgeons with high locking plate usage to evaluate their own unit’s practice against these data. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(7):841–849. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-cf5fc7dc6194487b9268ee2c04f90073 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2633-1462 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-07-01 |
| publisher | The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Bone & Joint Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-cf5fc7dc6194487b9268ee2c04f900732025-08-20T03:58:49ZengThe British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint SurgeryBone & Joint Open2633-14622025-07-016784184910.1302/2633-1462.67.BJO-2025-0009.R1The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study: a national multicentre retrospective review of practice in implant choice, fixation methods, and outcomes in fixation of the fibula in ankle fracturesWilliam G. Fishley0Thomas Baldock1Alan J. Hilley2Rory Morrison3Paul Baker4Dave Townshend5FAIR Study Collaborating AuthorsNorthumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Tyneside, UKNorthumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Tyneside, UKNorthumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Tyneside, UKNorthumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Tyneside, UKUniversity of York, York, UKNorthumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, North Tyneside, UKAims: In fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures, the AO Foundation advocates using a lag screw and one-third tubular neutralization plate for simple patterns. Where a lag screw cannot be placed, bridging fixation is required. A local pilot service evaluation previously identified variance in use of locking plates in all patterns with significant cost implications. The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study aimed to evaluate current practice and implant use across the UK, and review outcomes and complication rates between different fibula fixation methods. Methods: The study was supported by CORNET, the North East orthopaedic trainee research collaborative, and the British Orthopaedic Trainee Association (BOTA). Data were collected using REDCap software from 22 centres in the UK retrospectively for a one-year period between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019 on injury mechanism, fracture characteristics, comorbidities, fixation, and complications. Follow-up data were collected to at least two years from surgery. Results: A total of 1,471 ankle fractures which involved fixation of the fibula were analyzed; a one-third tubular plate was used in 883 cases (59.7%), a locking plate in 470 cases (31.8%), and other methods in 118 cases (8.1%). There was significant difference between centres (p < 0.001) in terms of the implant type which was used. Other factors associated with implant type were age, diabetes, osteoporosis, open fractures, and comminuted fractures. Incidence of lateral wound breakdown and infection was higher in locking plates than one-third tubular plates (Lateral wound breakdown p = 0.008, Infection p = 0.039) in AO44B fractures. There was no significant difference in nonunion, fixation failure, or removal of metalware. Conclusion: There is significant variation in practice in the UK in implant use for fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures. If a locking plate is used unnecessarily, where a one-third tubular shows equivalent outcomes, this incurs additional cost and may increase the risk of lateral wound complications. We would encourage surgeons with high locking plate usage to evaluate their own unit’s practice against these data. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(7):841–849.https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/epdf/10.1302/2633-1462.67.BJO-2025-0009.R1fixationlocking plateone-third tubular plateankle fracturelocking plateslocking plate fixationosteoporotic bonewound complicationsinfectiondiabetesfibulacomorbiditieswound |
| spellingShingle | William G. Fishley Thomas Baldock Alan J. Hilley Rory Morrison Paul Baker Dave Townshend FAIR Study Collaborating Authors The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study: a national multicentre retrospective review of practice in implant choice, fixation methods, and outcomes in fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures Bone & Joint Open fixation locking plate one-third tubular plate ankle fracture locking plates locking plate fixation osteoporotic bone wound complications infection diabetes fibula comorbidities wound |
| title | The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study: a national multicentre retrospective review of practice in implant choice, fixation methods, and outcomes in fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures |
| title_full | The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study: a national multicentre retrospective review of practice in implant choice, fixation methods, and outcomes in fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures |
| title_fullStr | The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study: a national multicentre retrospective review of practice in implant choice, fixation methods, and outcomes in fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study: a national multicentre retrospective review of practice in implant choice, fixation methods, and outcomes in fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures |
| title_short | The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study: a national multicentre retrospective review of practice in implant choice, fixation methods, and outcomes in fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures |
| title_sort | fracture ankle implant review fair study a national multicentre retrospective review of practice in implant choice fixation methods and outcomes in fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures |
| topic | fixation locking plate one-third tubular plate ankle fracture locking plates locking plate fixation osteoporotic bone wound complications infection diabetes fibula comorbidities wound |
| url | https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/epdf/10.1302/2633-1462.67.BJO-2025-0009.R1 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT williamgfishley thefractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT thomasbaldock thefractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT alanjhilley thefractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT rorymorrison thefractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT paulbaker thefractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT davetownshend thefractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT fairstudycollaboratingauthors thefractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT williamgfishley fractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT thomasbaldock fractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT alanjhilley fractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT rorymorrison fractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT paulbaker fractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT davetownshend fractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures AT fairstudycollaboratingauthors fractureankleimplantreviewfairstudyanationalmulticentreretrospectivereviewofpracticeinimplantchoicefixationmethodsandoutcomesinfixationofthefibulainanklefractures |