目的:比较内外固定分期序贯与切开内固定治疗高能量损伤pilon骨折的疗效。方法:回顾性研究2015年1月至2017年7月本课题组收治的61例高能量pilon骨折患者资料。根据方法不同分为内外固定分期序贯治疗组（序贯组）和单纯切开复位内固定治疗组（内固定组）。序贯组26例，男19例，女7例；年龄18~65岁；骨折OTA分型：C1型4例，C2型8例，C3型14例；闭合性损伤7例，开放性损伤19例。内固定组35例，男25例，女10例；年龄19~64岁；骨折OTA分型：C1型6例，C2型13例，C3型16例；闭合性损伤21例，开放性损伤14例。术后记录并比较两组患者术后感染发生率、骨折复位情况、骨折愈合时间、骨不连发生率、美国足踝外科协会（AOFAS）的踝-后足评分、健康调查量表（SF-36）、患侧较健侧踝关节减少的活动度。结果:序贯组和内固定组患者性别、年龄、骨折分型、致伤原因及随访时间比较差异均无统计学意义（n P>0.05），但两组软组织损伤情况比较差异有统计学意义（n P=0.010）。序贯组和内固定组患者术后感染发生率[15.4%（4/26）和17.1%（6/35）]、复位情况、骨折愈合时间[（7.4±4.3）个月和（6.5±3.2）个月]、骨不连发生率[7.7%（2/26）和8.6%（3/35）]、AOFAS的踝-后足评分[（71.7±29.4）分和（74.4±19.5）分]和SF-36（83.1±9.9和83.8±7.9）比较，差异均无统计学意义（n P>0.05）。序贯组患者术后6个月患侧较健侧踝关节减少的活动度（34.6°±7.2°）显著大于内固定组（23.7°±5.1°），差异有统计学意义（n P0.05）。n 结论:应用内外固定分期序贯与切开复位内固定治疗高能量pilon骨折均可获得良好的临床疗效，内外固定分期序贯治疗可能更适应于软组织损伤严重的患者。“,”Objective:To compare the therapeutic effects between sequential therapy of external-internal fixation and internal fixation alone in the treatment of high-energy pilon fracture.Methods:A total of 61 patients with high-energy pilon fracture were enrolled by our team for this retrospective analysis who had been treated from January 2015 to July 2017. They received sequential therapy of external-internal fixation (the sequential group) or internal fixation alone (the internal group). In the sequential group of 26 cases, there were 19 males and 7 females (aged from 18 to 65 years), 4 cases of type C1, 8 cases of type C2 and 14 cases of type C3 by the OTA classification, and 7 cases of closed injury and 19 cases of open injury. In the internal group of 35 cases, there were 25 males and 10 females (aged from 19 to 64 years), 6 cases of type C1, 13 cases of type C2 and 16 cases of type C3 by the OTA classification, and 21 cases of closed injury and 14 cases of open injury. The 2 groups were compared in terms of postoperative infection, fracture reduction, fracture union time, nonunion, American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot score, short form 36 health survey questionnaire (SF-36) and reduced range of motion between healthy and affected ankles.Results:There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in gender, age, fracture type, injury cause or follow-up time (n P>0.05), but a significant difference in soft tissue injury favoring the sequential group (n P=0.010). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in postoperative infection rate [15.4% (4/26) versus 17.1% (6/35)], fracture reduction, fracture union time [(7.4±3.4) months versus (6.5±3.2) months], nonunion rate [7.7% (2/26) versus 8.6% (3/35)], AOFAS ankle-hindfoot score (71.7±29.4 versus 74.4±19.5), or SF-36 (83.1±9.9 versus 83.8±7.9) (n P>0.05). The reduced range of motion between healthy and affected ankles at 6 months postoperation in the sequential group (34.6°±7.2°) was significantly greater than that in the internal group (23.7°±5.1°) (n P0.05).n Conclusion:Although both sequential therapy of external-internal fixation and internal fixation alone can lead to fine clinical efficacy in the treatment of high-energy pilon fracture, the former may be more suitable for the patients with severe soft tissue injury.