» Articles » PMID: 25260059

A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Trial Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Patients Treated Surgically with a Static or Dynamic Implant for Acute Ankle Syndesmosis Rupture

Overview
Journal J Orthop Trauma
Date 2014 Sep 27
PMID 25260059
Citations 63
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcome after stabilization of an acute syndesmosis rupture with either a static implant (a 3.5-mm metallic screw through 4 cortices) or a dynamic device (TightRope; Arthrex).

Design: Multicenter randomized double-blind controlled trial.

Settings: Study realized in 5 trauma centers (2 level 1 and 3 level 2) in 2 countries.

Patients/participants: Seventy subjects admitted for an acute ankle syndesmosis rupture entered the study and were randomized into 2 groups (dynamic fixation = 34 and static fixation = 36). The 2 groups were similar regarding demographic, social, and surgical data. Sixty-five patients (dynamic = 33 and static = 32) completed the study and were available for analysis.

Intervention: Syndesmosis fixation in the static group was realized with a 4 cortices 3.5-mm cortical screw (Synthes) and in the dynamic group with 1 TightRope (Arthrex). Standardized rehabilitation process for the 2 groups: no weight bearing in a cast for 6 weeks and then rehabilitation without protection.

Main Outcome Measurement: Olerud-Molander score.

Results: Subjects with dynamic fixation achieved better clinical performances as described with the Olerud-Molander scores at 3 (68.8 vs. 60.2, P = 0.067), 6 (84.2 vs. 76.8, P = 0.082), and 12 months (93.3 vs. 87.6, P = 0.046). We also observed higher American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society scores at 3 months (78.6 vs. 70.6, P = 0.016), but these were not significant at 6 (87.1 vs. 83.8, P = 0.26) or 12 months (93.1 vs. 89.9, P = 0.26). Implant failure was higher in the screw group (36.1% vs. 0%, P < 0.05). Loss of reduction was observed in 4 cases in the static screw group (11.1% vs. 0%, P = 0.06).

Conclusions: Dynamic fixation of acute ankle syndesmosis rupture with a dynamic device seems to result in better clinical and radiographic outcomes. The implant offers adequate syndesmotic stabilization without failure or loss of reduction, and the reoperation rate is significantly lower than with conventional screw fixation.

Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Citing Articles

Outcome comparison of rotational ankle fractures: Supination external rotation versus pronation external rotation.

Lee M, Lee G, Choi J, Lee K PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0316953.

PMID: 39821152 PMC: 11737693. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316953.


A Single-Center Retrospective Study on the Clinical Outcomes of TightRope Fixation Versus Syndesmotic Screw Fixation in the Management of Acute Traumatic Ankle Syndesmotic Injuries.

Quek F, Jundi H, Aktselis I, Elgalli M Cureus. 2024; 16(12):e76153.

PMID: 39711933 PMC: 11663228. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.76153.


[Biomechanical study of screw implant angle in reconstruction of tibiofibular syndesmosis injury].

Zhang L, Li M, Zhang M, Xiong J, Wang J, Zhou X Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2024; 38(12):1480-1485.

PMID: 39694838 PMC: 11655369. DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.202406079.


Comparison of screw fixation and dynamic fixation in the treatment of ankle fractures with syndesmotic ruptures.

Gungor E, Ercan N, Ovali S, Aydugan M, Cetin H Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2024; 30(12):900-906.

PMID: 39668533 PMC: 11849883. DOI: 10.14744/tjtes.2024.20094.


Comparison of the outcomes of syndesmotic ankle fractures treated with dynamic fixation versus static fixation versus fibular nail: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Cho T, Waters A, Senthilkumar S, Shendge S, Liu J Ann Jt. 2024; 9:36.

PMID: 39540066 PMC: 11558278. DOI: 10.21037/aoj-24-14.