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

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

	Bartoníček’s classification			Coefficient value	p-value
	Type 2	Type 3	Type 4	Coefficient value	p-value
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
Sex^a				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

Height of posterior malleolar fragment (HP), fragment area ratio (FAR), posterior malleolar fragment (PMF)
^aThe values are given as the number of patients

ISSN: 1471-2474