TightRope versus metallic screw fixation for treatment of tibiofibular syndesmosis injury

doi:10.12307/2021.272

Abstract

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Syndesmosis injury is usually a common complication after ankle sprain, especially with rotation type of malleolar fracture, and is a damaged part that needs special attention. The classical therapy of syndesmosis injury is syndesmosis fixation with one or two screws. As the minimal invasive technique developed, syndesmosis flexible fixation is more widely used.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the arthroscopic reduction of the lower tibiofibular syndesmosis of the ankle, and compare the clinical efficacy of tibiofibular syndesmosis screw and TightRope fixation.
METHODS: From January 2016 to August 2019, 51 patients with ankle joint fracture and distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury were randomly divided into two groups. Arthroscopic ankle reduction was performed in both groups, including 23 cases in metal screw fixation group and 28 cases in TightRope fixation group. The weight-bearing time and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. Ankle function was evaluated by gait analysis and American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score at the last follow-up.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: (1) 51 patients were followed up for 6 to 18 months. (2) The partial and full weight-bearing time of TightRope fixation group was significantly shorter than that of metal screw fixation group (P < 0.05). (3) There was no significant difference in gait analysis between the two groups at the last follow-up (P > 0.05). (4) There was no significant difference in American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score between the two groups at the last follow-up (P > 0.05), and the excellent rates both were 100%. (5) Arthroscopic ankle reduction can more accurately restore the structure of the lower tibiofibular syndesmosis. Compared with metal screw, TightRope in the treatment of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury can provide enough fixation strength, which can make patients load weight underground earlier, but the long-term effect is uncertain under the premise of stable tibiofibular syndesmosis.

Key words: ankle arthroscopy, tibiofibular syndesmosis, TightRope, tibiofibular syndesmosis screw, reduction, internal fixation

CLC Number:

Su Boyuan, Yao binfu, Zeng Guanglong, ye Zhongsen, Xie Qingxiang. TightRope versus metallic screw fixation for treatment of tibiofibular syndesmosis injury[J]. Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research, 2021, 25(30): 4845-4850.

Figures/Tables 6

References

[1] CHISSELL HR, JONES J. The influence of a diastasis screw on the outcome of Weber type-C ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg. 1995; 77(3):435-438.
[2] LEEDS HC, EHRLICH MG. Instability of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis after bimalleolar and trimalleolar ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(4):490-503.
[3] YAMAGUCHI K, MARTIN CH, BODEN SD, et al. Operative treatment of syndesmotic disruptions without use of a syndesmotic screw: a prospective clinical study. Foot Ankle Int. 1994;15(8):407.
[4] MORRIS JR, LEE J, THORDARSON D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of acute Maisonneuve fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 1996;17(5):259-263.
[5] PANKOVICH AM. Maisonneuve fracture of the fibula. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1976;58(3):337-442.
[6] BEUMER A, CAMPO MM, NIESING R, et al. Screw fixation of the syndesmosis: a cadaver model comparing stainless steel and titanium screws and three and four cortical fixation. Injury. 2005;36(1):60-64.
[7] BODEN SD, LABROPOULOS PA, MCCOWIN P, et al. Mechanical considerations for the syndesmosis screw. A cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(10):1548-1555.
[8] COTTOM JM, HYER CF, PHILBIN TM, et al. Treatment of syndesmotic disruptions with the Arthrex Tightrope: a report of 25 cases. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29(8):773-780.
[9] THORNES B, SHANNON F, GUINEY AM, et al. Suture-button syndesmosis fixation: accelerated rehabilitation and improved outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;431(431):207-212.
[10] MCMURRAY D, HORNUNG B, VENKATESWARAN B, et al. Walking on a tightrope: Our experience in the treatment of traumatic ankle syndesmosis rupture. Injury Extra. 2008;39(5):182-182.
[11] WILLMOTT HJ, SINGH B, DAVID LA. Outcome and complications of treatment of ankle diastasis with tightrope fixation. Injury. 2010; 41(10):1096.
[12] SEITZ WH, BACHNER EJ, ABRAM LJ, et al. Repair of the tibiofibular syndesmosis with a flexible implant. Orthop Trauma. 1991;5(1):78-82.
[13] DEGROOT H, AL-OMARI AA, EL GHAZALY SA. Outcomes of suture button repair of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(3): 250-256.
[14] HARPER MC, KELLER TS. A Radiographic Evaluation of the Tibiofibular Syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 1989;10(3):156-160.
[15] EBRAHEIM NA, LU J, YANG H, et al. Radiographic and CT evaluation of tibiofibular syndesmotic diastasis: a cadaver study. Foot Ankle Int. 1997;18(11):693.
[16] MASSIMILIANO C, GIOVANNI V, VITO P, et al. Beyond the pillars of the ankle: a prospective randomized CT analysis of syndesmosis’ injuries in Weber B and C type fractures. Injury. 2018;49(3):S54-S60.
[17] HARPER MC. Delayed reduction and stabilization of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(1):15-18.
[18] PAKARINEN H, FLINKKILÄ T, OHTONEN P, et al. Intraoperative 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.
[19] TAKAO M, OCHI M, NAITO K, et al. Arthroscopic diagnosis of tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg. 2001;17(8):836-843.
[20] TAKAO M, OCHI M, OAE K, et al. Diagnosis of a tear of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. The role of arthroscopy of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg. 2003;85(3):324-329.
[21] HOINESS P, STROMSOE K. Tricortical versus quadricortical syndesmosis fixation in ankle fractures: a prospective, randomized study comparing two methods of syndesmosis fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(6): 331-337.
[22] FRITSCHY D. An unusual ankle injury in top skiers. Am J Sports Med. 1989;17(2):282-286.
[23] MCBRYDE A, CHIASSON B, WILHELM A, et al. Syndesmotic screw placement: a biomechanical analysis. Foot Ankle Int. 1997;18(5):262-266.
[24] COETZEE JC, EBELING P. Treatment of syndesmoses disruptions: a prospective, randomized study comparing conventional screw fixation vs Tightrope1 fiber wire fixation-medium term results. South African Orthopaedic J. 2009;8(1):32-37.
[25] MANJOO A, SANDERS DW, TIESZER C, et al. Functional and radiographic results of patients with syndesmotic screw fixation: implications for screw removal. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24(1):2-6.
[26] XIE L, XIE H, WANG J, et al. Comparison 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.
[27] TERAMOTO A, SHOJI H, SAKAKIBARA Y, et al. Suturebutton fixation and mini-open anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament augmentation using suture tape for tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2018;57:159-161.
[28] ONGGO JR, NAMBIAR M, PHAN K, et al. Suture button versus syndesmosis screw constructs for acute ankle diastasis injuries: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Foot Ankle Surg. 2018;11(18):30364-30363.
[29] COLCUC C, BLANK M, STEIN T, et al. Lower 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;26:3156-3164.
[30] SCHEPERS T. Acute distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: a systematic review of suture-button versus syndesmotic screw repair. Int Orthop. 2012;36(6):1199-1206.
[31] CHERNEY SM, COSGROVE CT, SPRAGGS-HUGHES AG, et al. Functional outcomes of syndesmotic injuries based on objective reduction accuracy at a minimum 1-year follow-up. J Orthop Trauma. 2018;32(1): 43-51.
[32] ROBBIE R, NINA K, CLEMENT NICK D, et al. Ankle fractures with syndesmotic stabilisation are associated with a high rate of secondary osteoarthritis. Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;25(2):180-185.
[33] DEBERARDINO TM, SMITH PA, COOK JL. Femoral Suspension Devices for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Letter to the Editor. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(2):NP15-16.
[34] PETRE BM , SMITH SD, JANSSON KS, et al. Femoral Cortical Suspension Devices for Soft Tissue Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction A Comparative Biomechanical Study. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(2):416-422.
[35] STRUHL S. Double Endobutton Technique for Repair of Complete Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocations. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007; 8(4):175-179.
[36] COTTOM JM, HYER CF, PHILBIN TM, et al. 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.
[37] NAQVI GA, SHAFQAT A, AWAN N. Tightrope fixation of ankle syndesmosis injuries: clinical outcome, complications and technique modification. Injury. 2012;43(6):838-842.
[38] THORNES B, WALSH A, HISLOP M, et al. Suture-Endobutton fixation of ankle tibio-fibular diastasis: A cadaver study. Foot Ankle Int. 2003; 24(2):142-146.
[39] FORSYTHE K, FREEDMAN KB, STOVER MD, et al. Comparison of a novel FiberWire-button construct versus metallic screw fixation in a syndesmotic injury model. Foot Ankle Int. 2008;29(1):49-54.
[40] SHOJI H, TERAMOTO A, SUZUKI D, et al. Suture-button fixation and anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament augmentation with suture-tape for syndesmosis injury: A biomechanical cadaveric study. Clin Biomech. 2018;60:121-126.
[41] BARROW AE, PILIA M, GUDA T, et al. Femoral suspension devices for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: do adjustable loops lengthen. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(2):15-16.
[42] LEHTONEN EJ, PINTO MC, PATEL HA, et al. Syndesmotic fixation with suture button: Neurovascular structures at risk: A cadaver study. Foot Ankle Spec. 2020;13:12-17.