Skip to main content
. 2022 Dec 5;143(7):4181–4220. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04643-7

Table 4.

Studies reporting on the Haraguchi classification

Study Patients/
ankles
Sex/
age
PMF type distribution Treatment allocation Assesing Classification Reliability Predictive outcome values
Inter
OR
Intra
OR
Haraguchi (2006) [14] 57/57 41m, 16f, 43 (13–80) yo Type I (38), type II (11), type III (8) Type I: ORIF only when persistent intra-articular displacement; type II: only fixation of medial fragment and one-part fragments Yes n.r n.r n.r
Erdem (2014) [108] 40/40 20 m, 20f, 48.9 (24–51) yo Type I (28), type II 10), type III (2) Screws (20), plate (20) via PL approach No n.r n.r n.r
Mangnus (2015) [20] 45/45 n.r Type I (13), type II (15), type III (17) n.r Yes n.r n.r n.r
Choi (2015) [112] 50/50 27m, 23f, 47.5 (25–75) yo Type I (21), type II (29), type III (0) Single oblique PL approach for ORIF (37 × screw, 3 × buttress plate) No n.r n.r n.r
de Muinck Keizer (2016) [40] 28/28 n.r Type I (17), type II (8), type III (3) n.r No n.r n.r n.r
Bali (2017) [64] 15/15 9m, 6f, 37.8 yo Only type II PM approach for type II fixation No n.r n.r Good functional outcome using posteromedial approach (OMAS)
Zhong (2017) [118] 48/48 18m, 30f, 43.4 ± 12.7 (18–64) yo Type I (26), type II (13), type III (9) AP screws using PM approach (20), PA screws using PL approach (28) No n.r n.r n.r
Saygili (2017) [55] 73/73 34m, 39f, 42.65 ± 13.68 yo Type I (39), type II (28), type III (6) ORIF: posterior plate (17) percutaneous screw fixation (10) Yes n.r n.r Correlation was found between PMF ratio and Haraguchi type I and II fractures
Yi (2018) [95] 107/107 43m, 64f, 46.58 ± 15.5 yo Type I (76), type II (30), type III (1) n.r No n.r n.r n.r
Kumar (2018) [80] 56/56 48m, 8f, 34.7 ± 11.7 yo 16 of 56 with PMF; type I (9), modified type II into subtypes:A (3);B (1); type III (3) Prefer a PL incision in type I and a PM incision in type II, both PM and PL incisions preferred in type IIB Yes n.r n.r n.r
Huang (2018) [126] 111/111 72m,39f, 46.6 ± 16.1 yo 42 of 111 with PMF: type I (41), type II (0), type III (1) Surgical treatment (19), conservative treatment (23) No n.r n.r n.r
Kim (2018) [124] 19/19 7m, 12f, 45.1 (13–68) yo Type I (13), type II (6), type III (0) Release of PITFL through PL approach for PMF reduction with posterior screws (19) No n.r n.r n.r
Sobol (2018) [41] n.r./193 n.r 24 of 193 with PMF: type I (18), type II (6), type III (0) All type II with 2 AP screws, type I: screws (16), plate (1), no fixation (1); single syndesmotic screw (3 type I, 1 type II) Yes n.r n.r Type II were significantly more likely than type I fractures to have 2 screws placed
Hendrickx (2019) [129] 164/164 118m, 46f, 41.7 (14–90) yo 36 of 164 patients with PMF, 2 CTs insufficient: type I (33), type II (1), type III (0) n.r No n.r n.r Type I was the pattern specific to PMF associated with tibial shaft fractures
Baumbach (2019) [48] 236/236 99m, 137f, 53.0 ± 18.3 (18–100) yo Type I (112), type II (81), type III (43) ORIF: type I (44), type II (34), type III (0); CRIF: type I (15), type II (28), type III (1); no fixation type I (53) type II (19), type III (42) No n.r n.r n.r
Blom (2019) [19] 73/73 30m, 43f, 48 ± 14.8 yo Type I (20), type II (21), type III (32) Type I: direct fixation (8), non-direct fixation (6), no fixation (6); type II: direct fixation (13), non-direct fixation (1), no fixation (7); type III: direct fixation (1), non-direct fixation (20), no fixation (11) Yes n.r n.r Type II: worse outcome (FAOS, symptoms, pain, ADL)
Kang (2019) [49] 62/62 35m, 27f, 50.7 (19–78) yo Only type I involving < 25% of the articular surface 32 × screw fixation for PMFs (group A), 30 × internal fixation for malleolar fractures without screw fixation for PMFs (group B) Yes n.r n.r Surgical fixation of type I PMFs involving < 25% of the articular surface results in better clinical outcome (AAOS, FS-36, FAOS)
Kellam (2019) [130] 115/115 52m, 63f, 47 (16–93) yo Type I (62), type II (43), type III (10) PMF in tibial shaft fractures: 50 (93%) underwent direct surgical fixation, PMF in ankle fx: 38 (63%) direct surgical fixation Yes n.r n.r PMF in tibial shaft fx: 14 (47%) of type II injuries had additional fracture line oriented in the sagittal plane (fx pattern unique to these injuries) and more frequently extended to include MM
Meijer (2019) [131] 31/31 12m, 19f, 46 (19–73) yo Type I (17), type II (7), type III (7) Type I: fixation (8), no fixation (9); type II both fragments fixed (3)(2xplate, 1 × AP screws),only PL fragment (4); type III: syndesmotic screw (2), no fixation(5) No n.r n.r n.r
Mitchell (2019) [42] n.r./122 n.r 59 of 122 with PMF; 44 of 59 with CT data: type I (41), type II (3), type III (0) 30 treated with 1—2 screws, 29 treated nonoperatively No n.r n.r n.r
Sheikh (2019) [60] 20/20 11m, 9f, 50.4 (22–76) yo Modified after Kumar: Type I (10), type IIA (5), type IIB (4), type III (1) n.r No n.r n.r n.r
Yang (2020) [136] 27/27 11m, 16f, 61.5 (53–67) yo Only type II ORIF (combined posterolateral and posteromedial approach) No n.r n.r n.r
Mertens (2020) [65] 50/50 24m, 26f, 54 (21–83) yo Only 46 of 50 patients classified: type I (23), type II (20), type III (3) All ORIF (plate osteosynthesis) Yes n.r n.r Improving clinical outcomes (AOFAS score) from type I to type III
Blom (2020) [63] 70/70 30m, 40f, 47 ± 14.6 yo Type I (23), type II (22), type III (25) Type I: direct fixation (10), non-direct fixation (7), no fixation (6); type II: direct fixation (16), non-direct fixation (1), no fixation (5); type III: direct fixation (1), non-direct fixation (20), no fixation (4) Yes n.r n.r Type II with poorer FAOS; Type I: quality of reconstruction of tibial articular surface as predictive factor; Type III: quality of syndesmosis stabilization as predictive factor
Wang (2020) [138] 78/78 40m, 38f, 49.05 ± 15.97 yo Created subtypes of type II: Type I (40), type II (38) n.r No n.r n.r n.r
Zhang (2020) [135] 106/106 59m, 47f, 47.3 (21–75) yo Only type I n.r No n.r n.r n.r
Wang (2020) [137, 140] 48/48 13m, 35f, 48.9 (16–82) yo Type I (25), type II (18), type III (5) All were treated surgically (33 underwent ORIF: 5 × plates, 28 × screws) No n.r n.r n.r
He (2020) [140] 41/41 32m, 9f, 37.9 (18–61) yo 34 of 41 patients with PMF: type I (20), type II (4), type III (10) n.r No n.r n.r n.r
Palmanovich (2020) [62] 85/85 23m,62f, 53.4 (17–89) yo Modified Haraguchi: 61 cases “postero-lateral” 4 cases “postero-medial” 20 cases “postero-central” Mean trajectory angle for single PA screw was 21° lateral for “postero-lateral” fragments, 7° lateral for “postero-central” fragments, and 28° medial for “postero-medial” Yes n.r n.r n.r
Martin (2021) [142] 28/28 16m, 12f, 36 (19–69) yo Type I (13), type II (14), type III (1) Posterior arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation No n.r n.r n.r
Yu (2021) [143] 76/76 49m, 27f, 47.2 ± 13,5 yo Only type I Percutaneous PA and AP screw fixation No n.r n.r n.r
Quan (2021) [79] 95/95 28m, 67f, 50.07 (20–83) yo Type I (66), type II (19), type III (10) n.r Yes n.r n.r Most multifragment fractures cannot be defined with Haraguchi classification
Black (2021) [145] 279/279 93m, 186f, 55 ± 19 yo Type I (161), type II (94), type III (24) n.r No n.r n.r n.r
Fidan (2021) [146] 65/65 29m, 36f, 39.6 (18–89) yo Type I (45), type II (12), type III (8) Posterior plating via PL approach No n.r n.r n.r
Erinç (2021) [147] 86/86 53m, 33f, 41.70 ± 14.24 yo Type I (27), type II (59), type III (0) AP screw (50), ORIF (36) No n.r n.r n.r
Sun (2021) [98] 46/46 20m, 26f, 52.9 ± 14.1 yo Type I (11), type II (38), type III (0) Single-fragment type: posterior plate fixation with PL approach; double-fragment type: AP screw for PL fragment, PA screw for PM fragment No n.r n.r
Ræder (2021) [59] 210/210 130m, 80f, 44.74 ± 14.63 yo 125 of 210 with PMF: type I (61), type II (28), type III (36)

Syndesmotic stabilization in all patients; 13% treated surgically

(5 × type 1, 12 × type 2)

Yes C.kappa 0.797 n.r Presence of OA after 2 years ranged from 34% in type III group to 64% in type II group; type II had lower AOFAS score compared to no PMF
Schoenmakers (2022) [78] 26/26 10m, 16f, 58.08 ± 18.9 (22–78) yo Type I (11), type II (11), type III (4) Surgical treatment in 14 of 26 Yes n.r n.r Classification showed no relationship with functional outcome
Kleinertz (2022) [32] 113/113 37m, 76f, 56.2 ± 17.8 yo n.r n.r Yes C.kappa 0.799 C.kappa 0.985 n.r
Yamamoto (2022) [57] 110/110 44m, 66f, 52.5 ± 12.9 yo Only Type I if > 5% of joint surface and type II; type I (70), type II (40) n.r Yes n.r n.r Postoperative complications associated with low AOSAF score but not reduction and fixation
Patton (2022) [149] 153/153 46m, 107f, 51 ± 8 (18–89) yo Type I (50), type II (49), type III (37), unclassifiable (5) n.r No n.r n.r No association to Lauge-Hansen injury mechanism
Pflüger (2022) [24] 193/193 n.r n.r n.r Yes F.kappa 0.70 F.kappa 0.77 n.r
Sun (2022) [150] 32/32 11m, 21f, 45.6 ± 6.3 (32–59) yo Type I (20), type II (12), type III (0) PL approach with distal locking plate No n.r n.r n.r