Surgical Versus Conservative Treatment For Ankle Fractures In Adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits and harms

Introduction: Despite fractures of the ankle being very common, there is a lack of clarity regarding the relative effectiveness of conservative versus surgical treatment. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the clinical effects, benefits, and harms of surgical versus conservative treatment of ankle fractures in adults. Methods: A systematic search strategy was conducted in the databases: Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane up until the 16th of August 2017. Eight available randomized controlled trials, regardless of fracture type, reported on patient-reported ankle-specific functional outcome and were included. Analyses were based on random effects models. Results: The 8 included studies randomly allocated 1237 patients to either surgical or conservative treatment. Mean age of patients ranged from 38.1 to 71.4 years. Five studies evaluated short-term patient-reported ankle function, with no significant difference between surgery and conservative treatment (SMD = −0.14, 95%CI = −0.57 to 0.29, P = 0.51, I ² = 84%). Three studies evaluated health-related quality of life, with no significant difference in treatment effect between surgery or conservative treatment (SMD = 0.13, 95%CI = −0.01 to 0.27, P = 0.06, I ² = 0%). Conclusions: The best available current evidence supports that clinicians can manage ankle fractures by both surgical and conservative means with equal short-term results in selected patient groups with stable and unstable nondisplaced ankle fractures. However, more research is needed including high-quality RCTs investigating the long-term effects. This is especially the case in younger patients, before making significant interpretations about clinical practice.