Introduction The goal of this retrospective, observational, case series study was to evaluate the medium-long-term clinical and radiographic results of the three most common surgical osteosynthesis techniques used for the treatment of articular tibial pilon fractures: ORIF, MIPO, and EF. Materials and Methods A consecutive series of patients with articular pilon fractures who underwent surgery at our institution were enrolled in this study. Fractures were classified according to the Müller AO classification system. Overall outcomes took the following into account: radiographic quality of reduction, evaluated using Ovadia and Beals' criteria; clinical assessment, evaluated using the AOFAS questionnaire; and general health, evaluated with the SF36-v2 Health Survey. Results A total of 94 articular pilon fractures (34 type 43-B and 60 43-C) were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 56.34 months (range 33–101). The techniques used were ORIF, MIPO, and EF in 63 (67%), 17 (18.9%), and 14 cases (14.1%), respectively. According to Ovadia and Beals' criteria, good, fair, and poor results were reported in 61 (64.89%), 26 (27.66%), and 7 (7.45%) cases, respectively. The mean AOFAS score was 82.41 for MIPO, 79.83 for ORIF, and 50.57 for EF, respectively. Thirty-nine patients (41.49%) presented early and/or late complications. Conclusion Satisfactory outcomes using the three different techniques were reported. In particular, the radiographic outcomes were inversely proportional to the fracture comminutions and statistically different between internal and external osteosynthesis, but comparable between ORIF and MIPO techniques. On the other hand, the clinical outcomes were closely related to the soft tissue conditions and the anatomical reconstruction of the joint.

These study data seem to confirm our hypothesis that plate fixation for DHFs guarantees adequate fracture osteosynthesis and satisfactory functional outcomes at medium to long-term follow-up, not only in elderly patients, but also in octogenarian osteoporotic patients (≥85 years) with 13-C1 and 13-C2 fracture patterns, while an alternative solution should be considered for type C3 fractures, even in a primary trauma setting.

Tumor megaprostheses are modular systems commonly used for joint reconstructions following bone resection. In the last two decades, indications on the use of modular prostheses have progressively increased even in non-cancer patients, mainly as a review of implants, in particularly favorable conditions for hip and knee and with severe bone loss. Aim of this study is to define the current indications in the use of megaprostheses as revision implant in non-cancer patients, based on the experience of a reference cancer center and the data reported in the literature