Background: Primary tibiotalocalcaneal (TTC) nailing has been proposed as an alternative to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for unstable ankle fractures in older and medically high-risk adults, particularly when poor bone quality, frailty, soft-tissue compromise, or inability to comply with non-weight-bearing restrictions make conventional fixation less suitable.This systematic review and meta-analysis compared primary TTC nailing or tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis (TTCA) with ORIF in this population.Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 2026.Eligible studies directly compared primary TTC nailing/TTCA with ORIF for unstable ankle fractures in older or high-risk adults and reported extractable quantitative outcomes.Risk ratios were used for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes.Study quality was assessed using the modified Downs and Black Checklist.Results: Eight comparative studies involving 1,443 treatment episodes were included.Pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference between TTC nailing/TTCA and ORIF in length of hospital stay, overall postoperative infection, implant-related complications, nonunion, reoperation, or mortality.Superficial infection was significantly lower after TTC nailing, and individual studies consistently reported earlier postoperative weight-bearing with TTC fixation.However, some database and cohort studies reported higher readmission, malunion/nonunion, or secondary surgery after TTCA.Conclusion: Primary TTC nailing may be a reasonable alternative to ORIF for carefully selected older or highrisk patients, especially when early weight-bearing and reduced soft-tissue exposure are priorities.Current evidence does not demonstrate clear overall superiority over ORIF and remains limited by heterogeneity and residual confounding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elnewishy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: