Syndesmotic ankle fractures occur when damage to the syndesmosis complex is combined with a malleolar fracture. This can result in severe pain, weakness, and instability. Surgical interventions include syndesmotic screw fixation (SS), suture button fixation (SB), and tibiotalocalcaneal nail (TTC). This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of these treatment methods for syndesmotic ankle fractures.
Methods
A literature search was conducted on PubMed and Embase for comparison studies that included at least 2 surgical interventions and at least one of the relevant functional outcomes and/or complication metrics until June 2024. The Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) was used to compare functional outcomes, and it is a self-reported outcome measure that evaluates the symptoms and function of those with ankle fractures, while infections and reoperations were reported to compare complication outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4. A P-value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. The risk of bias was assessed with Review Manager 5.4. and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
Results
A total of 18 studies with a total of 1,040 patients were ultimately included in this study. The SS had a significantly higher OMAS 2-year follow-up compared to TTC. The TTC had a significantly lower infection rate compared to SS. The SB had a significantly higher OMAS at both 1-year and 2-year follow-ups than SS. The SB had a significantly lower reoperation rate compared to SS. The SB had a significantly higher OMAS at both 1-year and 2-year follow-ups than TTC. The SB had a significantly lower infection rate compared to TTC.
Conclusion
The SB emerges as the preferred treatment method for syndesmotic ankle fractures, while TTC stands as a viable alternative. The SB is recommended as the primary surgical intervention for patients with syndesmotic ankle fractures due to its superior clinical benefits when compared to TTC and SS.
Court-BrownCMCaesarB. Epidemiology of adult fractures: a review. Injury. 2006;37(8):691-697. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2006.04.130
2.
ScheerRCNewmanJMZhouJJ, et alAnkle fracture epidemiology in the United States: patient-related trends and mechanisms of injury. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;59(3):479-483. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2019.09.016
3.
WakeJMartinKD.Syndesmosis injury from diagnosis to repair: physical examination, diagnosis, and arthroscopic-assisted reduction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(13):517-527. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00358
4.
YuGSLinYBXiongGSXuHBLiuYY.Diagnosis and treatment of ankle syndesmosis injuries with associated interosseous membrane injury: a current concept review. Int Orthop. 2019;43(11):2539-2547. doi:10.1007/s00264-019-04396-w
5.
PorterDAJaggersRRBarnesAFRundAM.Optimal management of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Open Access J Sports Med. 2014;5:173-182. doi:10.2147/OAJSM.S41564
6.
XuGChenWZhangQWangJSuYZhangY.Flexible fixation of syndesmotic diastasis using the assembled bolt-tightrope system. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013;21:71. doi:10.1186/1757-7241-21-71
7.
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. doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1645-7
8.
ShimozonoYHurleyETMyersonCLMurawskiCDKennedyJG.Suture button versus syndesmotic screw for syndesmosis injuries: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(11):2764-2771. doi:10.1177/0363546518804804
9.
DimitrouliasA.Ankle tibiotalocalcaneal nailing in elderly ankle fractures as an alternative to open reduction internal fixation: technique and literature review. OTA Int. 2022;5(3):e183. doi:10.1097/OI9.0000000000000183
10.
TanYYNambiarMOnggoJR, et alTibio-talar-calcaneal nail fixation for ankle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2022;61(6):1325-1333. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2021.10.006
11.
TaylorBCHansenDCHarrisonRLucasDEDegenovaD.Primary retrograde tibiotalocalcaneal nailing for fragility ankle fractures. Iowa Orthop J. 2016;36:75-78.
12.
FranceschiFFranceschettiETorreG, et alTibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis using an intramedullary nail: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(4):1316-1325. doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3548-1
13.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
14.
MarshJLSlongoTFAgelJ, et alFracture and dislocation classification compendium—2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10 suppl):s1-s133. doi:10.1097/00005131-200711101-00001
15.
MullerMENSKochPSchatzkerJ. The Comprehensive Classification of Fractures of Long Bones. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1990.
16.
AltmeppenJNColcucCBalserC, et alA 10-year follow-up of ankle syndesmotic injuries: prospective comparison of knotless suture-button fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation. J Clin Med. 2022;11(9):2524. doi:10.3390/jcm11092524
17.
AndersenMRFrihagenFHellundJCMadsenJEFigvedW.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
18.
ColcucCBlankMSteinT, et alLower complication rate and faster return to sports in patients with acute syndesmotic rupture treated with a new knotless suture button device. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(10):3156-3164. doi:10.1007/s00167-017-4820-3
19.
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. doi:10.1097/bot.0000000000000245
20.
SandersDSchneiderPTaylorMTieszerCLawendyAR; Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society. 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
21.
GeorgiannosDLampridisVBisbinasI.Fragility fractures of the ankle in the elderly: open reduction and internal fixation versus tibio-talo-calcaneal nailing: short-term results of a prospective randomized-controlled study. Injury. 2017;48(2):519-524. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2016.11.017
22.
BalzianoSBaranIPratD.Hindfoot nailing without joint preparation for ankle fractures in extremely elderly patients: comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcomes with standard ORIF. Foot Ankle Surg. 2023;29(8):588-592. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2023.07.001
23.
CoetzeeJCEbelingPB.Treatment of syndesmoses disruptions: a prospective, randomized study comparing conventional screw fixation vs TightRope fiber wire fixation. SA Orthopaedic Journal. 2009;8:32-37.
24.
KocadalOYucelMPepeMAksahinEAktekinCN.Evaluation of reduction accuracy of suture-button and screw fixation techniques for syndesmotic injuries. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(12):1317-1325. doi:10.1177/1071100716661221
25.
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. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.02.004
26.
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. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2021.06.025
27.
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. doi:10.1016/j.injury.2015.05.027
ZhuNZhongQZhanJ, et alA new type of elastic fixation, using an encircling and binding technique, for tibiofibular syndesmosis stabilization: comparison to traditional cortical screw fixation. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;18(1):269. doi:10.1186/s13018-023-03579-x
30.
LargeTMKaufmanAMFrischHMBankierisKR.High-risk ankle fractures in high-risk older patients: to fix or nail?Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143(7):3725-3734. doi:10.1007/s00402-022-04574-3
31.
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. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2009.07.013
32.
RæderBWStakeIKMadsenJE, et alRandomized trial comparing suture button with single 3.5 mm syndesmotic screw for ankle syndesmosis injury: similar results at 2 years. Acta Orthop. 2020;91(6):770-775. doi:10.1080/17453674.2020.1818175
33.
GizaEOliverTBarousseP, et alA Prospective Randomized Investigation Comparing Functional Outcomes of Syndesmotic Suture-Button Fixation to Screws. International Journal of Orthopaedics. 2020; p1322-1328.
34.
WellsGSheaBO’ConnellD, et alThe Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta-Analyses. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa; 2021.
35.
GanKZhouKHuKLuLGuSShenY.Dynamic fixation versus static fixation for distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2019;25:1314-1322. doi:10.12659/MSM.913324
36.
ChenBChenCYangZHuangPDongHZengZ.To compare the efficacy between fixation with tightrope and screw in the treatment of syndesmotic injuries: a meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;25(1):63-70. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2017.08.001
37.
FanXZhengPZhangYYHouZT.Dynamic fixation versus static fixation in treatment effectiveness and safety for distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Surg. 2019;11(6):923-931. doi:10.1111/os.12523
38.
GrassiASamuelssonKD’HoogheP, et alDynamic stabilization of syndesmosis injuries reduces complications and reoperations as compared with screw fixation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(4):1000-1013. doi:10.1177/0363546519849909
39.
OnggoJRNambiarMPhanK, et alSuture button versus syndesmosis screw constructs for acute ankle diastasis injuries: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020;26(1):54-60. doi:10.1016/j.fas.2018.11.008
40.
MiglioriniFMaffulliNCocconiF, et alBetter outcomes using suture button compared to screw fixation in talofibular syndesmotic injuries of the ankle: a level I evidence-based meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024;144(6):2641-2653. doi:10.1007/s00402-024-05354-x
41.
XuKZhangJZhangP, et alComparison of suture-button versus syndesmotic screw in the treatment of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: a meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2021;60(3):555-566. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2020.08.005
42.
XieLXieHWangJ, et alComparison of suture button fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation in the treatment of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2018;60:120-131. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.11.007
43.
McKenzieACHesselholtKELarsenMSSchmalH.A systematic review and meta-analysis on treatment of ankle fractures with syndesmotic rupture: suture-button fixation versus cortical screw fixation. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;58(5): 946-953. doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2018.12.006
44.
GanKXuDHuKWuWShenY.Dynamic fixation is superior in terms of clinical outcomes to static fixation in managing distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(1):270-280. doi:10.1007/s00167-019-05659-0
45.
PenningDKleipoolSvan DierenSDingemansSMRODEO Collaborator Group, SchepersT.The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Olerud Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) in patients with unstable ankle fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023;143(6):3103-3110. doi:10.1007/s00402-022-04533-y
