“Flexible nature of fixation” in syndesmotic stabilization of the inferior tibiofibular joint affects the radiological reduction outcome

Abstract

Purpose Fibular mobility after suture button stabilization (SBS) of inferior tibiofibular joint (syndesmosis) injuries has been described. This effect is called the “flexible nature of fixation (FNF).” In this study, we aimed to quantify FNF in syndesmotic stabilization. Methods Postoperative bilateral computed tomography (CT) of ankle fractures with syndesmosis stabilization by SBS or syndesmotic screw (SYS) was retrospectively analyzed. The transverse offset (TO) and vertical offset (VO) were defined by evaluating the drill channels. The reduction outcome was evaluated by the side-to-side difference between the clear space and the anterior tibiofibular distance (antTFD). The calculated anterior tibiofibular distance (cal-antTFD) was calculated by subtracting the TO from the validated antTFD. Subsequently, a reevaluation of the reduction outcomes after SYS or SBS stabilization was performed using cal-antTFD. Results Sixty patients (44 with SBS and 16 with SYS stabilization) were analyzed. The intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities for TO and VO were excellent (α > 0.92). SYS stabilization showed lower mean TO (− 0.02 mm; SD 0.14) and VO (0.11 mm; SD, 0.29 mm) than SBS stabilization (TO 1.16 mm, SD 1.4 mm; VO 0.2 mm, SD 0.8 mm; p = 0.001). The rate of malreduction according to cal-antTFD was higher than that of antFTD (p = 0.033). Conclusion The presented method, which evaluates the position of the tibial to the fibular drill channel, allowed the quantification of the “FNF.” The often described difference in the dynamic stabilization of SBS compared to the rigid stabilization by SYS could be objectified. Considering cal-antTFD illustrates that FNF potentially reduces the rate of malreduction in SBS stabilization.

Intramedullary osteosynthesis for ankle fractures and distal tibiofibular syndesmotic disruption

“…В большинстве неспециализированных стационаров есть опыт рутинного удаления синдесмозного винта, даже при отсутствии показаний, что может быть причиной низкой эффективности данной методики, особенно в период до 6 месяцев после травмы [43][44][45][46][47]. Абсолютно во всех исследованиях, связанных со сравнением пуговичных методов фиксации и синдесмозных винтов, показано, что ста-Гений ортопедии.…”