Compensation of Dynamic Fixation Systems in the Quality of Reduction of Distal Tibiofibular Joint in Acute Syndesmotic Complex Injuries: A CT-Based Analysis

Overview

Journal Foot Ankle Int

Publisher Sage Publications

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2022 Aug 9

PMID 35942915

Authors

Fabian T Spindler

Federico P Gaube

Wolfgang Bocker

Hans Polzer

Sebastian F Baumbach

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: There is an ongoing discussion on how to best stabilize syndesmotic injuries. Previous studies have indicated a better quality of reduction of the distal tibiofibular joint (DTFJ) for the suture button systems compared to syndesmotic screw fixation. Still, the reason for this superiority remains unclear. The aims of this retrospective study were to (1) analyze the deviation of the tibial and fibular drilling tunnels of the suture button system and (2) to compare these to the quality of reduction of the DTFJ assessed on bilateral postoperative CT images.

Methods: Included were all adult patients who underwent syndesmotic stabilization for an acute injury using a suture button system, with postoperative, bilateral CT imaging over a 10-year period. A total of 147 patients were eligible. Based on individually reconstructed axial CT slices, the postoperative quality of reduction of the DTFJs was rated on bilateral CT images. Furthermore, the rotation and translation of the suture button drilling tunnels were analyzed. Based on these measurements, the intraoperative reduction of the DTFJ was recalculated and again rated. Using these values, the correction potential of suture button systems on the reduction of the DTFJ was analyzed.

Results: (1) The drilling tunnel deviated considerably for both rotation |2.3±2.1 degrees| (range: |0.0-13.1 degrees|) and translation |0.9±0.8 mm| (range: |0-4.3 mm|). Based on the deviation of the drilling tunnels in fibula and tibia, the calculated intraoperative reduction of the DTFJ was classified as malreduced in 35.4%. (2) The DTFJ was postoperatively identified as malreduced in 17% of patients. Overall, the suture button system tended to compensate toward a more anatomical reduction both in the axial and sagittal plane.

Conclusion: A suture button system postoperatively deviates and apparently has the capacity to compensate for intraoperative malreduction. Analysis of the drilling tunnels revealed that the use of a rigid fixation system would have doubled the postoperative malreduction rate.

Citing Articles

A 3-Ligament Syndesmotic Injury Is at Higher Risk for Malreduction Than a 2-Ligament Injury: A CT-Based Analysis.

Spindler F, Bocker W, Polzer H, Baumbach S Foot Ankle Int. 2024; 45(8):812-821.

PMID: 38817051 PMC: 11344963. DOI: 10.1177/10711007241238227.

Current concepts in ankle fractures.

Tansey P, Chen J, Panchbhavi V J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2023; 45:102260.

PMID: 37872976 PMC: 10589378. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2023.102260.

Safe drilling zones for anteriorly, central, and posteriorly angulated syndesmotic stabilization devices.

Baumbach S, Synek A, Spindler F, Bauer L, Bocker W, Polzer H Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022; 31(6):2199-2207.

PMID: 36547696 PMC: 10183421. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-022-07291-x.

Value of Intraoperative 3D Imaging on the Quality of Reduction of the Distal Tibiofibular Joint When Using a Suture-Button System.

Spindler F, Gaube F, Bocker W, Polzer H, Baumbach S Foot Ankle Int. 2022; 44(1):54-61.

PMID: 36537750 PMC: 9834319. DOI: 10.1177/10711007221138775.

References

Westermann R, Rungprai C, Goetz J, Femino J, Amendola A, Phisitkul P . The effect of suture-button fixation on simulated syndesmotic malreduction: a cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96(20):1732-8. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00198. View

Hopkinson W, St Pierre P, Ryan J, Wheeler J . Syndesmosis sprains of the ankle. Foot Ankle. 1990; 10(6):325-30. DOI: 10.1177/107110079001000607. View

Yamaguchi K, Martin C, Boden S, Labropoulos P . Operative treatment of syndesmotic disruptions without use of a syndesmotic screw: a prospective clinical study. Foot Ankle Int. 1994; 15(8):407-14. DOI: 10.1177/107110079401500801. View

Andersen M, Diep L, Frihagen F, Hellund J, Madsen J, Figved W . Importance of Syndesmotic Reduction on Clinical Outcome After Syndesmosis Injuries. J Orthop Trauma. 2019; 33(8):397-403. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001485. View

Miller A, Barei D, Iaquinto J, Ledoux W, Beingessner D . Iatrogenic syndesmosis malreduction via clamp and screw placement. J Orthop Trauma. 2012; 27(2):100-6. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31825197cb. View

Weening B, Bhandari M . Predictors of functional outcome following transsyndesmotic screw fixation of ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2005; 19(2):102-8. DOI: 10.1097/00005131-200502000-00006. View

Sanders D, Schneider P, Taylor M, Tieszer C, Lawendy A . Improved Reduction of the Tibiofibular Syndesmosis With TightRope Compared With Screw Fixation: Results of a Randomized Controlled Study. J Orthop Trauma. 2019; 33(11):531-537. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001559. View

Cherney S, Haynes J, Spraggs-Hughes A, McAndrew C, Ricci W, Gardner M . In Vivo Syndesmotic Overcompression After Fixation of Ankle Fractures With a Syndesmotic Injury. J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29(9):414-9. PMC: 4547473. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000356. View

Lindsjo U . Operative treatment of ankle fractures. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1981; 189:1-131. DOI: 10.3109/ort.1981.52.suppl-189.01. View

10.

Andersen M, Frihagen F, Hellund J, Madsen J, Figved W . Randomized Trial Comparing Suture Button with Single Syndesmotic Screw for Syndesmosis Injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018; 100(1):2-12. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.16.01011. View

11.

Shimozono Y, Hurley E, Myerson C, Murawski C, Kennedy J . Suture Button Versus Syndesmotic Screw for Syndesmosis Injuries: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Am J Sports Med. 2018; 47(11):2764-2771. DOI: 10.1177/0363546518804804. View

12.

Park Y, Ahn J, Choi G, Kim H . Comparison of Clamp Reduction and Manual Reduction of Syndesmosis in Rotational Ankle Fractures: A Prospective Randomized Trial. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2017; 57(1):19-22. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2017.05.040. View

13.

Wong M, Wiens C, LaMothe J, Edwards W, Schneider P . Four-Dimensional CT Analysis of Normal Syndesmotic Motion. Foot Ankle Int. 2021; 42(11):1491-1501. PMC: 8592109. DOI: 10.1177/10711007211015204. View

14.

Laflamme M, Belzile E, Bedard L, van den Bekerom M, Glazebrook M, Pelet S . A prospective randomized multicenter trial comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated surgically with a static or dynamic implant for acute ankle syndesmosis rupture. J Orthop Trauma. 2014; 29(5):216-23. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000245. View

15.

Akoh C, Phisitkul P . Anatomic Ligament Repairs of Syndesmotic Injuries. Orthop Clin North Am. 2019; 50(3):401-414. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2019.02.004. View

16.

Prior C, Widnall J, Rehman A, Weller D, Wood E . A simplified, validated protocol for measuring fibular reduction on ankle CT. Foot Ankle Surg. 2017; 23(1):53-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2016.02.005. View

17.

Riedel M, Miller C, Kwon J . Augmenting Suture-Button Fixation for Maisonneuve Injuries With Fibular Shortening: Technique Tip. Foot Ankle Int. 2017; 38(10):1146-1151. DOI: 10.1177/1071100717716487. View

18.

Sagi H, Shah A, Sanders R . The functional consequence of syndesmotic joint malreduction at a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Orthop Trauma. 2012; 26(7):439-43. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0b013e31822a526a. View

19.

Ramsey D, Friess D . Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Syndesmotic Screw Versus Suture Button Fixation in Tibiofibular Syndesmotic Injuries. J Orthop Trauma. 2018; 32(6):e198-e203. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000001150. View

20.

Clanton T, Whitlow S, Williams B, Liechti D, Backus J, Dornan G . Biomechanical Comparison of 3 Current Ankle Syndesmosis Repair Techniques. Foot Ankle Int. 2016; 38(2):200-207. DOI: 10.1177/1071100716666278. View