Anatomic Repair vs Closed Reduction of the Syndesmosis

Acute Ankle Diastasis Injuries Treated with Dynamic, Static Fixation or Anatomic Repair: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Comparison Studies

BACKGROUND

Acute ankle diastasis injuries are complex and debilitating. These injuries occur when the syndesmotic complex becomes compromised. Treatments of acute syndesmotic injuries include static fixation with screws, dynamic fixation with an elastic device, or anatomic repair of the damaged ligament. However, there is disagreement over which method is most effective. The primary purpose of this study was to compare the 3 treatment methods for acute syndesmotic injuries.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on Embase and PubMed. Studies that compared at least 2 groups with relevant American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), reoperation rate, and complication (implant failure, implant irritation, and infection) data were analyzed. Statistical analysis for this study was performed using Review Manager 5.4, with a standard p-value of ≤0.05 for statistical significance.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies including a total of 1,059 patients (452 dynamic, 529 static, and 78 anatomic) were included for analysis. Dynamic fixation had significantly higher mean AOFAS scores at 3 months postoperation by 5.12 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-9.96, p = 0.04) as well as at 1 year postoperation by 4.64 points (95% CI, 1.74-7.55, p = 0.002) than static fixation. Anatomic repair had significantly higher AOFAS scores at 6 months postoperation by 3.20 points (95% CI, 1.06-5.34, p = 0.003) and 1 year postoperation by 1.86 points (95% CI, 0.59-3.14, p = 0.004) than static fixation. Dynamic fixation had significantly higher AOFAS scores at 6 months postoperation by 2.81 points (95% CI, 0.76-4.86, p = 0.007), 12 months postoperation by 3.17 points (95% CI, 0.76-5.58, p = 0.01), and at 2 years postoperation by 5.56 points (95% CI, 3.80-7.32, p < 0.001) than anatomic repair. Dynamic fixation also had a lower VAS score average (favorable), only significant at 12 months postoperation, than static fixation by 0.7 points (95% CI -0.99 to -0.40, p < 0.001). Anatomic repair did not have significant difference in VAS scores compared with static fixation. Anatomic repair had significantly lower VAS scores at 12 months postoperation by 0.32 points (95% CI -0.59 to -0.05, p = 0.02) than dynamic fixation. Dynamic fixation had significantly less implant failures (odds ratio [OR], 0.13, 95% CI, 0.05-0.32, p < 0.001) than static fixation. Anatomic repair was not significantly different from static fixation in the complication metrics. Dynamic fixation and anatomic repair were not significantly different in the complication metrics either. Dynamic fixation had a significantly lower reoperation rate than static fixation (OR, 0.23, 95% CI, 0.09-0.54, p < 0.001). Anatomic repair did not have a significantly different reoperation rate compared with static fixation. However, dynamic fixation had a significantly lower reoperation rate than anatomic repair (OR, 4.65, 95% CI, 1.10-19.76, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Dynamic fixation seems to demonstrate superior early clinical outcomes. However, these advantages become negligible in the long term when compared with alternative options. Dynamic fixation is associated with a lower risk for complications, specifically seen with the decrease in implant failures. This method also presents a significantly lower reoperation rate compared with the other treatment approaches. Apart from showing improved early clinical outcomes in comparison with static fixation, anatomic repair did not have significant distinctions in other metrics, including complications or reoperation rate.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comparison the treatment of anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament anatomical repair and syndesmosis screw fixation for syndesmotic injuries in ankle fracture

BACKGROUND

The fixation method of syndesmotic injuries in ankle fractures remains controversial. The goal of the study was to compare radiographic and clinical outcomes between anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament (AITFL) anatomical repair with syndesmosis screw fixation in syndesmotic injuries.

METHODS

We analyzed 62 patients who were treated with AITFL anatomical repair or syndesmosis screw fixation for syndesmotic injuries in an advanced teaching hospital between March 2016 and March 2019. Fixation was performed with AITFL anatomical repair in 30 patients (AAR group) and syndesmosis screw in 32 patients (SS group). Radiographic evaluations were the differences in mean anterior and posterior (A difference and P difference) tibiofibular distance between injured and uninjured ankle computed tomography (CT) scan at 6 months postoperatively. Clinical evaluation of patients was done using the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle Hindfoot Score, the Olerud-Molander Ankle (OMA) score and visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 1, 3, 6 months and 1, 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

The A difference and P difference on CT was no differences (1.6 ± 0.8 mm, 1.3 ± 0.7 mm vs. 1.5 ± 0.7 mm, 1.2 ± 0.7 mm) between the two groups (All of P > 0.05). The AAR group had higher mean AOFAS score (65.6 ± 5.9, 82.3 ± 4.2, 87.6 ± 5.6 vs. 61.8 ± 5.2, 79.1 ± 4.0, 83.8 ± 4.9; P = 0.008, 0.003, 0.007) and higher mean OMA score (45.7 ± 8.7, 79.2 ± 6.5, 84.1 ± 5.3 vs. 40.4 ± 7.3, 74.8 ± 6.3, 80.3 ± 5.8; P = 0.012, 0.009, 0.010)) at 1, 3 and 6 months postoperatively. The AAR group had lower mean VAS scores (2.6 ± 1.2, 1.7 ± 0.7 vs. 3.4 ± 1.2, 2.2 ± 1.1; P = 0.018, 0.038) at 1 and 3 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that the AITFL anatomical repair technique could effectively improve ankle function during daily activity. Therefore, AITFL anatomical repair technique is expected to become a better fixation method for syndesmotic injuries.

Syndesmosis Malposition Assessed on Weight-Bearing CT Is Common After Operative Fixation of Intra-articular Distal Tibia Plafond Fracture

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate reliability of measurement techniques for syndesmosis position after operative fixation of distal tibia plafond fracture on weight-bearing computed tomography (WBCT), identify risk factors for syndesmosis malposition, and determine if syndesmosis malposition is associated with higher pain and lower physical function.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Three Level 1 trauma centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-six subjects who underwent open reduction and internal fixation of distal tibia plafond fractures with bilateral ankle WBCT 1 year or greater after injury were included in the study.

INTERVENTION

Operative fixation of distal tibia plafond fracture.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Fibula position in the tibia incisura, injury characteristics, and patient-reported outcomes were the main outcome measurements.

RESULTS

Interrater reliability for syndesmosis position measurements were excellent for the Phisitkul technique on both injured and healthy ankles (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs]: 0.93-0.98). The Nault technique demonstrated moderate-to-excellent interrater reliability (ICCs: 0.67-0.98), apart from the angle of rotation measurement (ICCs: 0.18-0.67). Sixteen of 26 subjects (62%) had syndesmosis malposition defined as >2 mm difference comparing the tibial-fibular relationship in injured and uninjured ankles using these 2 methods. Patients with syndesmosis malposition reported lower Foot and Ankle Ability Measure: Activities of Daily Living scores; other recorded patient-reported outcomes were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement techniques for syndesmosis position on WBCT were reliable after operative fixation of distal tibia plafond fracture. Syndesmosis malposition is common after these injuries and predicted impaired physical function.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Anatomically Fixed Posterior Malleolar Fractures in Syndesmosis Injuries without Transsyndesmotic Screw Fixation

BACKGROUND

The stability of the syndesmosis is extremely important in terms of syndesmosis injury, ankle instability, and posttraumatic osteoarthritis development following ankle fractures. The aim of this study is to evaluate 1-year radiographic outcomes after posterior malleolar fixation in lateral and posterior malleolar fractures and trimalleolar fractures without transsyndesmotic screw fixation.

METHODS

Ninety-four patients who underwent posterior malleolar fixation with posterolateral approach between January 2017 and June 2019 were evaluated retrospectively. The patients were evaluated with parameters such as demographic characteristics, fracture type, injury mechanism, physical examination, and radiographic measurements. The stability of the syndesmosis was evaluated by an intraoperative Cotton test and by measuring the tibiofibular overlap, tibiofibular clear space, and medial clear space parameters preoperatively on the immediate postoperative, first-year weightbearing ankle anteroposterior radiographs.

RESULTS

In immediate postoperative measurements on radiographs, although the mean tibiofibular overlap (P < .001) increased, the mean tibiofibular clear space (P < .001) and mean medial clear space (P < .001) decreased compared with preoperative radiographs. Immediate postoperative mean tibiofibular overlap, tibiofibular clear space, and medial clear space compared with postoperative first-year mean tibiofibular overlap (P = .39), tibiofibular clear space (P = .23), and medial clear space (P = .43) were not statistically significant. Bone union was completed radiographically at a median of 3.4 ± 1.8 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

After posterior malleolar fractures, anatomic reduction of the posterior malleolus and posterior inferior tibiofibular ligament complex provides strong syndesmosis stability as measured radiographically at 1 year. Patients may not need additional transsyndesmotic screw fixation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.