Operative treatment is indicated for unstable syndesmosis injuries, and approximately 20% of all ankle fractures require operative fixation for syndesmosis injuries.
Purpose:
To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating clinical outcomes between suture button (SB) and syndesmotic screw (SS) fixation techniques for syndesmosis injuries of the ankle.
Study Design:
Meta-analysis.
Methods:
A literature search was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the SB and SS techniques for syndesmosis injuries. Level of evidence was assessed per the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan, and a P value ≤.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results:
Five clinical studies were identified, allowing comparison of 143 patients in the SB group with 142 patients in the SS group. Patients treated with the SB technique had a higher postoperative American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score at a mean 20.8 months (95.3 vs 86.7, P < .001). The SB group resulted in a lower rate of broken implants (0.0% vs 25.4%, P < .001), implant removal (6.0% vs 22.4%, P = .01), and joint malreduction (0.8% vs 11.5%, P = .05) as compared with the SS group.
Conclusion:
The SB technique results in improved functional outcomes as well as lower rates of broken implant and joint malreduction. Based on the findings of this meta-analysis, the SB technique warrants a grade A recommendation by comparison with the SS technique for the treatment of syndesmosis injuries.
AndersenMRFrihagenFHellundJCMadsenJEFigvedW. Randomized trial comparing suture button with single syndesmotic screw for syndesmosis injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(1):2-12.
2.
AndersenMRFrihagenFMadsenJEFigvedW. High complication rate after syndesmotic screw removal. Injury. 2015;46(11):2283-2287.
3.
BavaECharltonTThordarsonD. Ankle fracture syndesmosis fixation and management: the current practice of orthopedic surgeons. Am J Orthop. 2010;39(5):242-246.
4.
CoetzeeJCEbelingPB. Treatment of syndesmoses disruptions: a prospective, randomized study comparing conventional screw fixation vs TightRope fiber wire fixation—medium-term results. South African Orthop J. 2009;8(1):32-37.
5.
ColcucCBlankMSteinT, et al. Lower complication rate and faster return to sports in patients with acute syndesmotic rupture treated with a new knotless suture button device [published online December9, 2017]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-017-4820-3
6.
CottomJMHyerCFPhilbinTMBerletGC. Transosseous fixation of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: comparison of an interosseous suture and endobutton to traditional screw fixation in 50 cases. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2009;48(6):620-630.
7.
GardnerMJDemetrekopolousDBriggsSMHelfetDLLorichDG. Malreduction of the tibiofibular syndesmosis in ankle fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(10):788-792.
8.
HigginsJGreenS. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Published 2011. Accessed January 8, 2018.
9.
HigginsJPThompsonSGDeeksJJAltmanDG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560.
10.
HowickJChalmersIGlasziouP, et al. The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Published 2011. Accessed January 8, 2018.
11.
HozoSPDjulbegovicBHozoI. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5(1):13.
12.
KocadalOYucelMPepeMAksahinEAktekinCN. Evaluation of reduction accuracy of suture-button and screw fixation techniques for syndesmotic injuries. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(12):1317-1325.
13.
KortekangasTSavolaOFlinkkilaT, 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):1119-1126.
14.
LaflammeMBelzileELBedardLvan den BekeromMPGlazebrookMPeletS. 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. 2015;29(5):216-223.
15.
LalliTAMatthewsLJHanselmanAEHubbardDFBramerMASantrockRD. Economic impact of syndesmosis hardware removal. Foot. 2015;25(3):131-133.
16.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJ, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.
17.
LundbergA. Kinematics of the ankle and foot: in vivo roentgen stereophotogrammetry. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1989;233:1-24.
18.
MaganAGolanoPMaffulliNKhandujaV. Evaluation and management of injuries of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Br Med Bull. 2014;111(1):101-115.
19.
ManjooASandersDWTieszerCMacleodMD. Functional and radiographic results of patients with syndesmotic screw fixation: implications for screw removal. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24(1):2-6.
20.
NaqviGACunninghamPLynchBGalvinRAwanN. Fixation of ankle syndesmotic injuries: comparison of tightrope fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy of syndesmotic reduction. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(12):2828-2835.
21.
NaqviGAShafqatAAwanN. Tightrope fixation of ankle syndesmosis injuries: clinical outcome, complications and technique modification. Injury. 2012;43(6):838-842.
22.
PirozziKMCreechCLMeyrAJ. Assessment of anatomic risk during syndesmotic stabilization with the suture button technique. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;54(5):917-919.
23.
SagiHCShahARSandersRW. The functional consequence of syndesmotic joint malreduction at a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(7):439-443.
24.
SchepersTVan LieshoutEMde VriesMRVan der ElstM. Complications of syndesmotic screw removal. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(11):1040-1044.
25.
SchepersTVan LieshoutEMVan der LindenHJDe JongVMGoslingsJC. Aftercare following syndesmotic screw placement: a systematic review. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2013;52(4):491-494.
26.
SchonJMMikulaJDBackusJD, et al. 3D model analysis of ankle flexion on anatomic reduction of a syndesmotic injury. Foot Ankle Int. 2017;38(4):2436-2442.
27.
SchonJMWilliamsBTVenderleyMB, et al. A 3-D CT analysis of screw and suture-button fixation of the syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 2017;38(2):208-214.
28.
SeyhanMDonmezFMahirogullariMCakmakSMutluSGulerO. Comparison of screw fixation with elastic fixation methods in the treatment of syndesmosis injuries in ankle fractures. Injury. 2015;46(suppl 2):S19-S23.
29.
SongDJLanziJTGrothAT, et al. The effect of syndesmosis screw removal on the reduction of the distal tibiofibular joint: a prospective radiographic study. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(6):543-548.
van de BekeromMPKloenPLuitseJSRaaymakersEL. Complications of distal tibiofibular syndesmotic screw stabilization: analysis of 236 patients. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2013;52(4):456-459.
32.
WeeningBBhandariM. Predictors of functional outcome following transsyndesmotic screw fixation of ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(2):102-108.
33.
WrightJGEinhornTAHeckmanJD. Grades of recommendation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(9):1909-1910.
34.
ZhangPLiangYHeJFangYChenPWangJ. A systematic review of suture-button versus syndesmotic screw in the treatment of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):286.
