Comparative CT Study on Syndesmosis Mobility after Static or Dynamic Fixation for Ankle Fractures with Syndesmotic Rupture: A Pilot Study

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

1 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, La Paz University Hospital-IdiPaz, Madrid, Spain

2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Infanta Elena University Hospital, Valdemoro, Madrid, Spain

3 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, La Paz University Hospital-IdiPaz, Madrid, Spain- Osteoarticular Surgery Research, Hospital La Paz Institute for Health Research, IdiPAZ (La Paz University Hospital, Autonomous University of Madrid), Madrid, Spain

Abstract

Background: The objective of this prospective randomized pilot study is to compare, by computed tomography (CT), the mobility of syndesmosis after static fixation (SF) or dynamic fixation (DF) in ankle fractures with syndesmotic rupture (AFSR) in adults, and to compare this mobility with that of healthy ankles.
Methods: Forty-two patients with an AFSR were randomized to 2 groups: SF (N=21) or DF (N=21). Seven patients were lost to follow-up. Ultimately, 35 patients (SF, N=20; DF, N=15) were analyzed. The clinical results were assessed with the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society scale. To assess syndesmosis mobility, CT in 30° of plantar flexion (PFlex) and 20° of dorsal flexion (DFlex) was performed on both ankles one year after the fracture. Four parameters were measured: anterior tibiofibular distance, posterior tibiofibular posterior distance, angle of fibular rotation (AFR), and anteroposterior fibular translation.
Results: The AFR between DFlex and PFlex was more similar to the non-affected side in the DF group. The other three parameters showed no statistical differences between types of fixation. The mean loss of AFR compared with the non-affected side was 1.2° in the SF group and 0.1° in the DF group. No clinical differences between the SF group and the DF group were found. No correlation between clinical and radiological results was observed.
Conclusions: The AFR was more similar to the non-affected side in the DF group. However, this finding did not correlate with a better clinical result.

Keywords: Ankle; Fracture; Syndesmosis mobility; Static fixation; Dynamic fixation; CT scan

Level of Evidence II: Prospective cohort study.

Keywords

References

1. Kellett JJ. The clinical features of ankle syndesmosis 
injuries: a general review.Clin J Sport Med. 2011; 
21(6):524-9.
2. Purvis GD. Displaced, unstable ankle fractures: 
classification, incidence, and management of a 
consecutive series.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982; 
165:91-8.
3. Scheer RC, Newman JM, Zhou JJ, Oommen AJ, Naziri 
Q, Shah NV, et al. Ankle fracture epidemiology in the 
United States: patient-related trends and mechanisms 
of injury. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020; 59(3):479-83.
4. Rammelt S, Zwipp H, Grass R. Injuries to the distal 
tibiofibular syndesmosis: an evidence-based 
approach to acute and chronic lesions. Foot Ankle 
Clin. 2008; 13(4):611-33.
5. Jensen SL, Andresen BK, Mencke S, Nielsen PT. 
Epidemiology of ankle fractures. A prospective  1. Kellett JJ. The clinical features of ankle syndesmosis 
injuries: a general review.Clin J Sport Med. 2011; 
21(6):524-9.
2. Purvis GD. Displaced, unstable ankle fractures: 
classification, incidence, and management of a 
consecutive series.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982; 
165:91-8.
3. Scheer RC, Newman JM, Zhou JJ, Oommen AJ, Naziri 
Q, Shah NV, et al. Ankle fracture epidemiology in the 
United States: patient-related trends and mechanisms 
of injury. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020; 59(3):479-83.
4. Rammelt S, Zwipp H, Grass R. Injuries to the distal 
tibiofibular syndesmosis: an evidence-based 
approach to acute and chronic lesions. Foot Ankle 
Clin. 2008; 13(4):611-33.
5. Jensen SL, Andresen BK, Mencke S, Nielsen PT. 
Epidemiology of ankle fractures. A prospective population-based study of 212 cases in Aalborg, 
Denmark. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998; 69(1):48-50. 
6. van Staa TP, Dennison EM, Leufkens HG, Cooper C. 
Epidemiology of fractures in England and Wales. 
Bone. 2001; 29(6):517-22.
7. Court-Brown CM, McBirnie J, Wilson G. Adult ankle 
fractures—an increasing problem? Acta Orthop 
Scand. 1998; 69(1):43-7.
8. Elgafy H, Semaan HB, Blessinger B, Wassef A, 
Ebraheim NA. Computed tomography of normal 
distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Skeletal Radiol. 2010; 
39(6):559-64.
9. Endo J, Yamaguchi S, Saito M, Morikawa T, Akagi 
R, Sasho T. Changes in the syndesmotic reduction 
after syndesmotic screw fixation for ankle malleolar 
fractures: One-year longitudinal evaluations using 
computer tomography. Injury .2016; 47(10):2360-5. 10.Sagi HC, Shah AR, Sanders RW. The functional 
consequence of syndesmotic joint malreduction at a 
minimum 2-year follow-up. J Orthop Trauma. 2012; 
26(7):439-43.
11.Peter RE, Harrington RM, Henley MB, Tencer AF. 
Biomechanical effects of internal fixation of the 
distal tibiofibular syndesmotic joint: comparison 
of two fixation techniques. J Orthop Trauma. 1994; 
8(3):215-9.
12.Wang C, Ma X, Wang X, Huang J, Zhang C, Chen L. 
Internal fixation of distal tibiofibular syndesmotic 
injuries: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int 
Orthop. 2013; 37(9):1755-63.
13.Krähenbühl N, Weinberg MW, Hintermann B, Haller 
JM, Saltzman CL, Barg A. Surgical outcome in chronic 
syndesmotic injury: a systematic literature review. 
Foot Ankle Surg. 2019; 25(5):691-7.
14.Nousiainen MT, McConnell AJ, Zdero R, McKee MD, 
Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH. The influence of the 
number of cortices of screw purchase and ankle 
position in Weber C ankle fracture fixation. J Orthop 
Trauma. 2008; 22(7):473-8.
15.McKenzie AC, Hesselholt KE, Larsen ML, Schmal H. A 
systematic review and meta-analysis on treatment 
of ankle fractures with syndesmotic rupture: suturebutton fixation versus cortical screw fixation. J Foot 
Ankle Surg. 2019;58(5):946-53.
16.Xie L, Xie H, Wang J, Chen C, Zhang C, Chen H, et al. 
Comparison of suture button fixation and syndesmotic 
screw fixation in the treatment of distal tibiofibular 
syndesmosis injury: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Int J Surg. 2018; 60:120-31.
17.Zhang P, Liang Y, He J, Fang Y, Chen P, Wang J. A systematic 
review of suture-button versus syndesmotic screw 
in the treatment of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis 
injury. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 18(1):286.
18.Lauge-Hansen N. Fractures of the ankle: II. 
Combined experimental-surgical and experimentalroentgenologic investigations. Arch Surg. 1950; 
60(5):957-85.
19.Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, 
Myerson MS, Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for 
the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. 
Foot Ankle Int. 1994; 15(7):349-53.
20.Mousavian A, Shakoor D, Hafezi-Nejad N, Haj-Mirzaian 
A, de Cesar Netto C, Orapin J, et al. Tibiofibular 
syndesmosis in asymptomatic ankles: initial 
kinematic analysis using four-dimensional CT.Clinical 
Radiol. 2019;74(7):571.e1-571.e8.
21.Schepers T. Acute distal tibiofibular syndesmosis 
injury: a systematic review of suture-button versus 
syndesmotic screw repair. Int Orthop. 2012; 
36(6):1199-206.
22.Thornes B, Shannon F, Guiney AM, Hession P, 
Masterson E. Suture-button syndesmosis fixation: 
accelerated rehabilitation and improved outcomes. 
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 431:207-12. 
23.Stiene A, Renner CE, Chen T, Liu J, Ebraheim NA. Distal 
tibiofibular syndesmosis dysfunction: a systematic 
literature review of dynamic versus static fixation over 
the last 10 years. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019; 58(2):320-7.
24.Kortekangas T, Savola O, Flinkkilä T, Lepojärvi S, 
Nortunen S, Ohtonen P, et al. A prospective randomised 
study comparing TightRope and syndesmotic screw 
fixation for accuracy and maintenance of syndesmotic 
reduction assessed with bilateral computed 
tomography. Injury. 2015; 46(6):1119-26.
25.Beumer A, van Hemert WLW, Niesing R, Entius 
CAC, Ginai AZ, Mulder PGH, et al. Radiographic 
measurement of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis 
has limited use. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; 
423:227-34.
26.Pneumaticos SG, Noble PC, Chatziioannou SN, Trevino 
SG. The effects of rotation on radiographic evaluation 
of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 
2002;23(2):107-11.
27.Beumer A, Valstar ER, Garling EH, Niesing R, Ranstam J, 
Löfvenberg R, et al. Kinematics of the distal tibiofibular 
syndesmosis: radiostereometry in 11 normal ankles. 
Acta Orthop Scand. 2003; 74(3):337-43.
28.Osgood GM, Shakoor D, Orapin J, Qin J, Khodarahmi 
I, Thawait GK, et al. Reliability of distal tibio-fibular 
syndesmotic instability measurements using 
weightbearing and non-weightbearing cone-beam CT. 
Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;25(6):771-81.
29.Shakoor D, Osgood GM, Brehler M, Zbijewski WB, 
de Cesar Netto C, Shafiq B, et al. Cone-beam CT 
measurements of distal tibio-fibular syndesmosis in 
asymptomatic uninjured ankles: does weight-bearing 
matter? Skeletal Radiol. 2019; 48(4):583-94.
30.Nault M-L, Hébert-Davies J, Laflamme G-Y, Leduc 
S. CT scan assessment of the syndesmosis: a new 
reproducible method. J Orthop Trauma. 2013; 
27(11):638-41.
31.Warner SJ, Fabricant PD, Garner MR, Schottel PC, 
Helfet DL, Lorich DG. The measurement and clinical 
importance of syndesmotic reduction after operative 
fixation of rotational ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg 
Am. 2015; 97(23):1935-44.
32.Michelson JD, Helgemo Jr SL. Kinematics of the axially 
loaded ankle. Foot Ankle Int. 1995; 16(9):577-82.
33.Kohake MBJ, Wiebking U, O’Loughlin PF, Krettek C, 
Gaulke R. Mid- to long-term outcomes after Weber 
B-type ankle fractures with and without syndesmotic 
rupture. In Vivo. 2019;33(1):255-61.
34.Gräff P, Alanazi S, Alazzawi S, Weber-Spickschen 
S, Krettek C, Dratzidis A, et al. Screw fixation for 
syndesmotic injury is stronger and provides more 
contact area of the joint surface than TightRope®: 
A biomechanical study. Technol Health Care. 
2020;28(5):533-9.
35.Longo UG, Loppini M, Fumo C, Lanotte A, Trovato U, 
Risi Ambrogioni L, et al. Deep deltoid ligament injury 
is related to rotational instability of the ankle joint: 
a biomechanical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol 
Arthrosc .2021; 29(5):1577-83

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 10, Issue 8
August 2022
Pages 702-711

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 29 November 2021
  • Revise Date: 12 January 2022
  • Accept Date: 15 January 2022
  • First Publish Date: 15 February 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics