Risk Factors for Aseptic Revision of Surgically-Treated Ankle Fractures
Authors: Stupay Kristen L. , Staffa Steven , McTague Michael , Weaver Michael J. , Miller Christopher P. , Kwon John Y. 
Published: January 2022

Category: Trauma; Ankle Introduction/Purpose: Early revision rates within 12 months after ankle fracture open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) are fairly low, however remain relevant given the sheer volume of ankle fractures which occur each year. Understanding these rates is complex because reoperation due to technical or mechanical complications - such as malunion, inadequate reduction or fixation failure - are typically reported alongside returns to the operating room for soft-tissue related problems like wound dehiscence or infection. There is limited data identifying risk factors specifically for revision of ankle fracture fixation in the absence of soft-tissue complications. Understanding variables which predispose to aseptic technical and mechanical failure without this confounder may provide insight and improve patient care. Methods: The purpose was to identify risk factors for aseptic revision of ankle fracture within ORIF 1 year of primary operation. A retrospective cohort study was performed at two large academic medical centers. Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) data available from 2002-2019 was used to identify patients who underwent aseptic revision of ankle fracture ORIF within 12mo of their primary ORIF. Patients were excluded if <18yo at primary surgery, or if indications for return to the operating room included surgical management of a dehisced wound or deep infection. A control group was selected by identifying sequential patients who underwent ankle fracture ORIF which did not require revision within 12mo. Primary and revision surgeon characteristics, patient demographics, comorbidities, fracture characteristics, surgical techniques and post-operative events were recorded and compared in univariate analysis. Variables which achieved significance in univariate comparisons were included as candidates for multivariable analysis. Results: 33 patients were identified for the Revision group. 100 patients were identified for the Control group (Power = 80% for detecting moderate differences). Groups did not differ in age or gender. Final multivariable logistic regression modeling, adjusting for all other variables within the multivariable analysis, demonstrated the following factors to be independently associated with an increased risk of revision surgery: Documented falls in the early post-operative period (aOR: 298; 95% CI: 15.4, 5759; P<0.001), Movement-altering disorders (aOR=81.7; 95% CI: 4.12, 1620; P=0.004), a non-anatomic mortise (MCS > SCS) on immediate post- operative imaging (aOR=28.4; 95% CI: 5.53, 267; P<0.001), more severe initial fracture displacement (ARCS Type C) (aOR vs Type A =25.8; 95% CI: 2.81, 237; P=0.004), Substance abuse (aOR=15.7; 95% CI: 2.66, 92.8; P=0.002), and polytrauma (aOR=12.3; 95% CI: 2.02, 74.8; P=0.006). Conclusion: Six factors were found to be predictive of the need for aseptic revision: Documented falls in the early post- operative period (aOR: 298), movement-altering disorders (aOR=81.7), a non-anatomic mortise (MCS > SCS) on immediate post- operative imaging (aOR=28.4), more severe initial fracture displacement (ARCS Type C) (aOR=25.8), substance abuse (aOR=15.7) and polytrauma (aOR=12.3). Identifying these factors may allow surgeons to better counsel their patients and discuss risk during the informed consent process. These may also serve as future targets for intervention aimed at improving patient safety and outcomes follow ankle fracture ORIF.