Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of demographic and fracture morphology between three types of Bartoníček’s classification

From: The risk of violating the posterior malleolar fracture when nailing the ipsilateral concomitant spiral distal tibial fracture

  Bartoníček’s classification Coefficient value p-value
Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
No. of patients 9 7 39   
Age (yr) 49.33 ± 14.54 43.00 ± 21.51 44.61 ± 12.07 F = 0.522 0.596
Sexa     χ2 = 4.105 0.128
 Female 7 2 24   
 Male 2 5 15   
Secondary fracture line     χ2 = 10.878 0.004
 Negative 4 4 4   
 Positive 5 3 35   
FAR (%) 0.05
(0.04–0.09)
0.16
(0.14–0.30)
0.24
(0.19–0.26)
H = 20.585 < 0.001
HP (mm) 26.37
(21.51–28.18)
30.98
(26.30–39.40)
33.77 (29.99–39.76) H = 13.258 0.0013
Incidence of PMF violation      
 S13     χ2 = 11.205 0.004
  PMF spared 9 3 15   
  PMF disrupted 0 4 24   
 S15     χ2 = 8.414 0.015
  PMF spared 9 3 19   
  PMF disrupted 0 4 20   
  1. Height of posterior malleolar fragment (HP), fragment area ratio (FAR), posterior malleolar fragment (PMF)
  2. aThe values are given as the number of patients