Abstract
Category:
Ankle, Arthroscopy, Sports
Introduction/Purpose:
Open modified Broström-Gould procedure is generally accepted as the gold-standard treatment for chronic lateral ankle instability. Recently an arthroscopic lateral ankle ligament repair technique has become increasingly popular in an effort to reduce post-operative pain and facilitate early recovery. The purpose of the current systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence on arthroscopic lateral ankle ligament repair techniques and to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic and open techniques for chronic lateral ankle instability with meta-analysis.
Methods:
A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed during August 2017. Included studies were evaluated with regard to level of evidence (LOE) and quality of evidence (QOE) using the Coleman Methodology Score. Variable reporting outcome data, clinical outcomes, and percentage of patients who returned to sport at previous level were also evaluated. Comparative studies were compared using RevMan version 5.3, and a p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results:
Twelve studies for a total of 421 ankles were included; 92% of studies were LOE III or IV and the QOE in all studies was of poor or fair quality. There were three comparative studies of open and arthroscopic repair procedures, with two Level III studies and one Level I study. There was a significant difference in favor of arthroscopic repair at final follow-up for the Karlsson- Peterson score (MD; 2.59, 95%CI, -0.19 to 2.36, I2=0%, p=0.10) and the AOFAS score (MD; 1.50, 95%CI, 0.41 to 2.59, I2=0%, p=0.007) in the comparative studies. The overall complication rate was 13.4% in the included studies but in the comparative studies there was no statistically significant difference between open and arthroscopic repair (12.1% vs 11.4%, p=0.90).
Conclusion:
The current systematic review demonstrated that arthroscopic lateral ankle ligament repair may yield favorable clinical outcomes and may be superior to open procedure in the short-term, but there is no clinical evidence to support the advantages of the arthroscopic procedure over the open procedure in the mid- long-term follow-up. There was a relatively high complication rate associated with the arthroscopic procedures, with a 13.4% complication rate, although recent comparative studies demonstrated similar complication rates.