XXXX . How do these ankles function over time?

@entity1 @entity571 @entity174 @entity3681 @entity158
BACKGROUND: The intermediate outcome of @entity174 of the tibial plafond treated with current techniques has not been reported, to our knowledge. The purpose of this study, performed at a minimum of five years after injury, was to determine the effect of these @entity174 on ankle function, @entity158 , and general health status and to determine which factors predict favorable and unfavorable outcomes. METHODS: Fifty-six ankles (fifty-two @entity1 ) with a @entity174 were treated with a uniform technique consisting of application of a monolateral hinged transarticular external fixator coupled with screw fixation of the articular surface. Thirty-one @entity1 with thirty-five involved ankles returned between five and twelve years after the injury for a physical examination, assessment of @entity158 and function with the Iowa Ankle Score and Ankle @entity571 Scale, assessment of general health status with the Short Form-36 (SF-36), and radiographic examination of the ankle. RESULTS: Arthrodesis had been performed on five of the forty ankles for which the outcome was known at a minimum of five years after the injury. Other than removal of prominent screws (two @entity1 ), no other surgical procedure had been performed on any @entity1 . The average Iowa Ankle Score was 78 points (range, 28 to 96 points). The scores on the SF-36 and Ankle @entity571 Scale demonstrated a long-term negative effect of the injury on general health and on @entity158 and function when compared with those parameters in age-matched controls. The degree of @entity571 was grade 0 in three ankles, grade 1 in six, grade 2 in twenty, and grade 3 in six. The majority of @entity1 had some limitation with regard to recreational activities, with an inability to run being the most common complaint (twenty-seven of the thirty-one @entity1 ). Fourteen @entity1 changed jobs because of the @entity3681 . Fifteen ankles were rated by the @entity1 as excellent; ten, as good; seven, as fair; and one, as poor. Nine @entity1 with previously recorded ankle scores had better scores after the longer follow-up interval. The @entity1 perceived that their condition had improved for an average of 2.4 years after the injury. CONCLUSIONS: Although @entity174 have an intermediate-term negative effect on ankle function and @entity158 and on general health, few @entity1 require secondary reconstructive procedures and symptoms tend to decrease for a long time after healing.
