Comparative Study for Surgical Treatment of Acute Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmotic Lesions Using the Modified Suture-Button Fixation Versus Static Syndesmotic Screw Fixation
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2026
Comparative Study for Surgical Treatment of Acute Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmotic Lesions Using the Modified Suture-Button Fixation Versus Static Syndesmotic Screw Fixation
Several techniques to treat acute distal tibiofibular instability are described consisting in static and dynamic fixation procedures. The aim of our work is to compare the outcomes of acute syndesmotic injury fixation between the modified technique of dynamic fixation using the suture-button principle as an efficient and low-cost method and the classic static fixation.
Methods
It is a prospective study including patients presenting with acute syndesmotic injury. After fracture fixation, residual syndesmotic instability was managed using syndesmotic screw in group A and dynamic fixation with a double Ethibond suture in group B. Functional results were assessed using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score (AOFAS) score. Radiological evaluation was done by a postoperative computed tomography (CT) scan of both ankles and plain X-rays of the ankle after surgery and at 18 months.
Results
Group A included 20 patients meanwhile 35 patients were in group B. The reduction was satisfactory in the 2 groups according to the postoperative CT scan measurements. The mean healing time in group A was 49.65 days and 51.49 days in group B (P = .45). We did not find any significant difference in terms of loss of reduction in the 2 groups. The return to work was faster in group B (P = .04). Patients in group B had better AOFAS score (P = .03) and ankle range of motion than those in group A. The difference was statistically significant (P = .02 for dorsal flexion and P = .001 for plantar flexion). For group A, we did not note any early complications. Meanwhile, 7 patients developed skin complications in group B (P = .03). However, no significant difference was found in terms of late complications.
Conclusions
The modified dynamic suture-button fixation remains a therapeutic alternative in low-income countries that could achieve better outcomes than static fixation, with easy postoperative follow-up.
LinCFGrossMLWeinholdP.Ankle syndesmosis injuries: anatomy, biomechanics, mechanism of injury, and clinical guidelines for diagnosis and intervention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(6):372-384.
2.
TournéYMolinierFAndrieuMPortaJBarbierG.Diagnosis and treatment of tibiofibular syndesmosis lesions. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019;105(8S):S275-S286.
3.
BurwellHNCharnleyAD.The treatment of displaced fractures at the ankle by rigid internal fixation and early joint movement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1965;47(4):634-660.
4.
van den BekeromMPde LeeuwPAvan DijkCN.Delayed operative treatment of syndesmotic instability. Injury. 2009;40(11):1137-1142.
5.
HsuYTWuCCLeeWCFanKFTsengICLeePC.Surgical treatment of syndesmotic diastasis: emphasis on effect of syndesmotic screw on ankle function. Int Orthop. 2011;35(3):359-364.
6.
BellDPWongMK.Syndesmotic screw fixation in Weber C ankle injuries: should the screw be removed before weight bearing. Injury. 2006;37(9):891-898.
7.
DesoukyOElsebyAGhalabAH. Removal of syndesmotic screw after fixation in ankle fractures: a systematic review. Cureus;13(6):e15435.
8.
ParkerASBeasonDPSlowikJSSabatiniJBWaldropNE3rd. Biomechanical comparison of 3 syndesmosis repair techniques with suture button implants. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(10):804204.
9.
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.
10.
HughesJLWeberHWilleneggerHKunerEH. Evaluation of ankle fractures: non-operative and operative treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979(138):111-119.
11.
ShariffSSNathwaniDK.Lauge-Hansen classification: a literature review. Injury. 2006;37(9):888-890.
12.
MongaPKumarASimonsAPanikkerV.Management of distal tibio-fibular syndesmotic injuries: a snapshot of current practice. Acta Orthop Belg. 2008;74(3):365-369.
13.
LuiTHIpKChowHT.Comparison of radiologic and arthroscopic diagnoses of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption in acute ankle fracture. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(11):1370.
14.
PakarinenHFlinkkiläTOhtonenP, et alIntraoperative assessment of the stability of the distal tibiofibular joint in supination-external rotation injuries of the ankle: sensitivity, specificity, and reliability of two clinical tests. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(22):2057-2061.
15.
BouaichaWJlidiMSbaihiS, et alA modified dynamic fixation technique for acute syndesmotic injuries. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2024;9(1):1232979.
16.
NielsonJHGardnerMJPetersonMGE, et alRadiographic measurements do not predict syndesmotic injury in ankle fractures: an MRI study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005(436):216-221.
17.
OstrumRFDe MeoPSubramanianR.A critical analysis of the anterior-posterior radiographic anatomy of the ankle syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16(3):128-131.
18.
HarperMC.An anatomic and radiographic investigation of the tibiofibular clear space. Foot Ankle. 1993;14(8):455-458.
19.
NaultMLHébert-DaviesJLaflammeGYLeducS.CT scan assessment of the syndesmosis: a new reproducible method. J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27(11):638-641.
20.
ElgafyHSemaanHBBlessingerBWassefAEbraheimNA.Computed tomography of normal distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Skeletal Radiol. 2010;39(6):559-564.
21.
ScrantonPEJrMcMasterJGKellyE. Dynamic fibular function: a new concept. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976(118):76-81.
22.
GardnerMJDemetrakopoulosDBriggsSMHelfetDLLorichDG.The ability of the Lauge-Hansen classification to predict ligament injury and mechanism in ankle fractures: an MRI study. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20(4):267-272.
23.
FranceschiniMBoffaAPignottiEAndrioloLZaffagniniSFilardoG.The minimal clinically important difference changes greatly based on the different calculation methods. Am J Sports Med. 2023;51(4):1067-1073.
24.
SchepersT.Acute distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: a systematic review of suture-button versus syndesmotic screw repair. Int Orthop. 2012; Jun36(6):1199-1206.
25.
ForsytheKFreedmanKBStoverMDPatwardhanAG.Comparison of a novel FiberWire-button construct versus metallic screw fixation in a syndesmotic injury model. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29(1):49-54.
26.
SoinSPKnightTADinahAFMearsSCSwierstraBABelkoffSM.Suture-button versus screw fixation in a syndesmosis rupture model: a biomechanical comparison. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(4):346-352.
27.
MillerRSWeinholdPSDahnersLE.Comparison of tricortical screw fixation versus a modified suture construct for fixation of ankle syndesmosis injury: a biomechanical study. J Orthop Trauma. 1999;13(1):39-42.
28.
HuntKJBartolomeiJChallaSC, et alSignificant variations in surgical construct and return to sport protocols with syndesmotic injuries: an ISAKOS global perspective. J ISAKOS. 2022;7(1):13-18.
NaqviGAShafqatAAwanN.Tightrope fixation of ankle syndesmosis injuries: clinical outcome, complications and technique modification. Injury. 2012;43(6):838-842.
31.
LaflammeMBelzileELBédardLvan 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.
32.
KortekangasTSavolaOFlinkkiläT, et alA 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.
33.
XuYKangRLiM, et alThe clinical efficacy of suture-button fixation and trans-syndesmotic screw fixation in the treatment of ankle fracture combined with distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: a retrospective study. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2022;61(1):143-148.
34.
ObeyMRSchaferKMathenyLM, et alSyndesmotic suture button fixation results in higher tegner activity scale scores when compared to screw fixation: a multicenter investigation. Foot Ankle Spec. 2024;17(3):270-276.
35.
İğrekSUlusoyİ.What is the best treatment for syndesmosis fixation? Suture-button or syndesmotic screw? Bilateral CT-based early postoperative analysis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2023;29(2):128-135.
36.
KocadalOYucelMPepeMAksahinEAktekinCN.Evaluation of reduction accuracy of suture-button and screw fixation techniques for syndesmotic injuries. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(12):1317-1325.
37.
LehtolaRLeskeläHVFlinkkiläT, et alSuture button versus syndesmosis screw fixation in pronation-external rotation ankle fractures: a minimum 6-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Injury. 2021;52(10):3143-3149.
38.
FantryAJO’DonnellSWBornCTHaydaRA.Deep infections after syndesmotic fixation with a suture button device. Orthopedics. 2017;40(3):e541-e545.
39.
WillmottHJSinghBDavidLA.Outcome and complications of treatment of ankle diastasis with tightrope fixation. Injury. 2009;40(11):1204-1206.
40.
HodgsonPThomasR.Avoiding suture knot prominence with suture button along distal fibula: technical tip. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(9):908-909.
41.
MonestierLRivaGCoda ZabettaLSuraceMF.Outcomes after unstable fractures of the ankle: what’s new? A systematic review. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2022;14(4):35688.
42.
RamadanovNBueschgesSDimitrovD.Comparison of outcomes between suture button technique and screw fixation technique in patients with acute syndesmotic diastasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2021;6(4):1061405.
