Suture-Button Versus Syndesmotic Screw Fixation of Ankle Fractures: A Comparative Retrospective Review Over One Year.
ankle fracture
syndesmotic injury
syndesmotic screws
tightrope
trauma
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
accepted:
08
09
2021
entrez:
15
9
2021
pubmed:
16
9
2021
medline:
16
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Background Syndesmotic fixation is essential in the management of unstable ankle fractures with syndesmotic disruption. It can be achieved either by rigid fixation with screws or dynamic fixation with suture-button devices. Syndesmosis screws are considered the gold standard for the stabilisation and fixation of distal tibiofibular syndesmotic injuries. We use both types of devices in our unit for the stabilisation of syndesmotic injuries. In our department, Arthrex TightRope® (Arthrex, Naples, FL) is the preferred suture-button device for the dynamic fixation of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Some studies have reported better outcomes with the use of suture-button devices. In this study, we aim to compare the outcomes with the use of both these devices. Methodology This retrospective cohort study was conducted from 1 June 2019 until 31 May 2020 which included all patients who underwent syndesmotic fixation. Data were collected from the Northern Ireland Electronic Care Record and the Northern Ireland Picture Archiving and Communication System. Primary outcomes included reoperation rates due to failure of syndesmotic hardware. Secondary outcomes included the comparison of complications (e.g. infection, wound problems, or loss of reduction) radiographic fixation/stability, duration of follow-up, and significant ongoing symptoms at the time of discharge from the clinic. Results A total of 53 patients underwent syndesmotic stabilisation during this period. In total, 34 patients underwent fixation with TightRope and 19 underwent syndesmotic screw fixation. Three patients (9%) had reoperation due to any cause in the TightRope group compared to four patients (21%) in the syndesmotic screw group. All four patients in the syndesmotic screws group underwent implant removal due to failure or symptoms due to implant. Only one patient (3%) in the TightRope group underwent implant removal due to ongoing pain [the other two (6%) patients included one with lateral ankle abscess and one with long distal fibula screws, both unrelated to the use of TightRope and TightRope left in situ at reoperation]. Rediastasis was reported in one (5.2%) patient with syndesmotic screws. The median duration of follow-up was 82 days in the syndesmotic screw group compared to 77.5 days in the TightRope group. Conclusions Based on our data, we report a lower incidence of implant-related problems and the need for implant removal with the use of TightRope. Quicker return to weight-bearing and slightly better radiographic stabilisation were noted as well. Our study has its limitations in terms of a small number of patients and the absence of functional outcomes as these were not routinely recorded at the time of discharge from the clinic.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34522560
doi: 10.7759/cureus.17826
pmc: PMC8428197
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e17826Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021, Yawar et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Jul-Aug;(118):76-81
pubmed: 954295
J Foot Ankle Surg. 1998 Jul-Aug;37(4):280-5
pubmed: 9710779
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Jan;45(1):210-217
pubmed: 27601151
Injury. 2015 Nov;46(11):2283-7
pubmed: 26319204
Foot Ankle Int. 2011 Nov;32(11):1040-4
pubmed: 22338952
J Orthop Trauma. 2019 Nov;33(11):531-537
pubmed: 31633643
J Anat. 2010 Dec;217(6):633-45
pubmed: 21108526
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Apr;90(4):405-10
pubmed: 18378910
Injury. 2015;46(6):1119-26
pubmed: 25769201
Foot Ankle Int. 2012 Sep;33(9):717-21
pubmed: 22995257
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Dec;40(12):2828-35
pubmed: 23051785
Injury. 2013 Dec;44(12):1880-4
pubmed: 24021584
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996 Mar;78(2):250-2
pubmed: 8666636
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017 May;27(4):461-467
pubmed: 28074301
Trials. 2020 Jul 2;21(1):606
pubmed: 32616003
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Aug 19;102(16):1465
pubmed: 32516276
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Aug 31;20(1):811
pubmed: 32867779
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2013 Jul-Aug;52(4):456-9
pubmed: 23632070
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Dec 10;15(1):599
pubmed: 33302992
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Jul 4;18(1):286
pubmed: 28676078
Orthop Surg. 2017 Nov;9(4):365-371
pubmed: 29178310
J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019 Sep;58(5):946-953
pubmed: 31474406
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013 Sep 22;21:71
pubmed: 24053432
J Orthop Trauma. 2015 May;29(5):216-23
pubmed: 25260059