Prognostic value of the Haraguchi classification in posterior malleolar fractures in A0 44-C type ankle fractures.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Incidence of posterior malleolar fractures (PMFs) associated with ankle fractures is historically based on plain radiographs. Several classification systems for PMF are currently in use, but the reliability of the Haraguchi classification is not reported. The aim of this diagnostic cohort study was to assess incidence of PMF in patients with AO 44-C fractures, and test the reliability of the Haraguchi fracture classification based on CT. In addition, to evaluate the clinical outcome in patients with PMF. METHODS: 210 patients with an AO 44-C type fracture treated with syndesmotic fixation between 2011 and 2017 were included. Presence of PMF was registered, morphology was assessed and classified according to the Haraguchi classification. Interobserver agreement for the Haraguchi classification was evaluated. Patient assessment was conducted at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 and 2 years. The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Score (AOFAS) was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included presence of osteoarthritis. RESULTS: 125 of 210 patients (60%) had a PMF. 34% of the PMFs were missed on plain radiographs compared to CT. The interobserver agreement was 0.797, (95% CI: 0.705 to 0.889, p < 0.001), for the Haraguchi classification. The 2-year follow-up rate was 86%. Haraguchi type II fractures had a lower AOFAS compared with the no-fracture group at 6 weeks (mean difference -7.5 (95% CI; -15.0 to -0.2), p = 0.04) and 6 months (mean difference -8.4 (95% CI; -15.3 to -1.5), p = 0.01). Presence of osteoarthritis was higher in patients with Haraguchi type II PMF compared to the no PMF group, this finding was not significant (relative risk (RR) 1.6(95% CI 1.1 to 2.4, p = 0.059)). CONCLUSIONS: Plain radiographs underestimated PMF. Patients with a Haraguchi type II fracture had a poorer outcome measured by the AOFAS score compared to no PMF up until 6 months. Classification of PMF according to the Haraguchi classification was reliable.

Chronic Syndesmotic Injury: Revision and Fixation With a Suture Button and a Quadricortical Screw.

Background. Chronic syndesmotic injury may cause long-term pain and reduced ankle function. Today, there is no consensus about the best surgical treatment of these injuries. We present the technique and results of revision and fixation with a suture button and a quadricortical screw. Methods. Eleven patients treated for chronic syndesmotic injury were included. The patients completed questionnaires regarding ankle function, and computed tomography scans were obtained to evaluate tibiofibular distance and osteoarthritis. Complications were registered. Results. At mean 45 months follow-up, the mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score was 87 points. There were 5 complications, including 3 hardware-related pain. The tibiofibular distance was significantly reduced with surgery. Seven patients had progression of osteoarthritis. Conclusions. Even though the majority of the patients had progression of radiological signs of osteoarthritis, the functional outcome after revision and fixation with a suture button and a quadricortical screw in chronic syndesmotic ruptures is good and comparable to the results presented in other studies.Levels of Evidence: Level IV: Case series without control, technical note.

Randomized trial comparing suture button with single 3.5 mm syndesmotic screw for ankle syndesmosis injury: similar results at 2 years.

Background and purpose - Better outcomes are reported for suture button (SB) compared with syndesmotic screws (SS) in patients treated for an acute ankle syndesmotic injury. One reason could be that screws are more rigid than an SB. A single tricortical 3.5 mm syndesmotic screw (TS) is the most dynamic screw option. Our hypothesis is that 1 SB and 1 TS provide similar results. Therefore, in randomized controlled trial, we compared the results between SB and TS for syndesmotic stabilization in patients with acute syndesmosis injury. Patients and methods - 113 patients with acute syndesmotic injury were randomized to SB (n = 55) or TS (n = 58). The American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), Olerud-Molander Ankle score (OMA), visual analogue scale (VAS), EuroQol- 5D (EQ-5D), radiologic results, range of motion, complications, and reoperations (no implants were routinely removed). CT scans of both ankles were obtained after surgery, and after 1 and 2 years. Results - The 2-year follow-up rate was 84%. At 2 years, median AOFAS score was 97 in both groups (IQR SB 87-100, IQR TS 90-100, p = 0.7), median MOXFQ index was 5 in the SB group and 3 in the TS group (IQR 0-18 vs. 0-8, p = 0.2), and median OMA score was 90 in the SB group and 100 in the TS group (IQR 75-100 vs. 83-100, p = 0.2). The syndesmotic reduction was similar 2 years after surgery; 19/55 patients in the SB group and 13/58 in the TS group had a difference in anterior syndesmotic width ≥ 2 mm (p = 0.3). 0 patients in the SB group and 5 patients in the TS group had complete tibiofibular synostosis (p = 0.03). At 2 years, 10 TS were broken. Complications and reoperations were similar between the groups. Interpretation - We found no clinically relevant differences regarding outcome scores between the groups. TS is an inexpensive alternative to SB.

Better outcome for suture button compared with single syndesmotic screw for syndesmosis injury: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: In a randomized controlled trial with two-year follow-up, patients treated with suture button (SB) for acute syndesmotic injury had better outcomes than patients treated with syndesmotic screw (SS). The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes for these treatment groups after five years. METHODS: A total of 97 patients with acute syndesmotic injury were randomized to SS or SB. The five-year follow-up rate was 81 patients (84%). The primary outcome was the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle Hindfoot Scale. Secondary outcome measures included Olerud-Molander Ankle (OMA) score, visual analogue scale (VAS), EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), range of movement, complications, reoperations, and radiological results. CT scans of both ankles were obtained after surgery, and after one, two, and five years. RESULTS: The SB group had higher median AOFAS score (100 (interquartile range (IQR) 92 to 100) vs 90 (IQR 85 to 100); p = 0.006) and higher median OMA score (100 (IQR 95 to 100) vs 95 (IQR 75 to 100); p = 0.006). The SS group had a higher incidence of ankle osteoarthritis (OA) (24 (65%) vs 14 (35%), odds ratio (OR) 3.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 8.8); p = 0.009). On axial CT we measured a significantly smaller mean difference in the anterior tibiofibular distance between injured and non-injured ankles in the SB group (-0.1 mm vs 1.2 mm; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Five years after syndesmotic injury treated with either SB or SS, we found better AOFAS and OMA scores, and lower incidence of ankle OA, in the SB group. These long-term results favour the use of SB when treating an acute syndesmotic injury. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):212-219.

Use of Suture Button in the Treatment of Syndesmosis Injuries.

A suture button device provides fixation of syndesmosis injuries of the ankle with or without concomitant malleolar fracture. The suture button device consists of a fiber thread attached between 2 small metal buttons. The buttons are placed on the cortical bone on the medial and lateral sides of the ankle, and the fiber thread is tightened to stabilize the syndesmosis. The suture button device offers stable yet dynamic fixation of the injured syndesmosis. The major steps of the procedure are (1) lateral skin incision straight to the bone; (2) open reduction and plate fixation of the fibular fracture if one is present; (3) reduction of the syndesmosis and temporary stabilization with a pin or clamp; (4) use of an appropriate burr to make a hole through 4 cortices at the level of the inferior tibiofibular joint, approximately 1.5 cm proximal to the ankle joint line and at a 20° to 30° lateral-to-anteromedial angle; (5) pulling the needle attached to the suture button device through the drill-hole from lateral to medial and flipping the small plate on the cortical bone of the medial cortex of the medial malleolus; (6) tightening the device by pulling the 2 threads on the lateral side with care taken to remove all of the slack from the system; and (7) checking placement and fixation with fluoroscopy, cutting the threads, and skin closure. Use of a walker boot or cast is decided on the basis of the fracture fixation. Partial weight-bearing is allowed for the first 6 weeks, after which full weight-bearing is permitted as pain allows. Routine removal of the suture button device is not required.

Randomized Trial Comparing Suture Button with Single Syndesmotic Screw for Syndesmosis Injury.

BACKGROUND: This study compared clinical and radiographic results between patients who underwent stabilization of an acutely injured syndesmosis with a suture button (SB) and those treated with 1 quadricortical syndesmotic screw (SS). METHODS: Ninety-seven patients, 18 to 70 years old, with an ankle injury that included the syndesmosis were randomized to 2 groups: SB (48 patients) and SS (49). The main outcome measure was the score on the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scale. The secondary outcome measures were the Olerud-Molander Ankle (OMA) score, visual analog scale (VAS), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Index and VAS. Computed tomography (CT) scans of both ankles were obtained at 2 weeks and 1 and 2 years after surgery. Both groups were allowed partial weight-bearing at 2 weeks and full weight-bearing at 6 weeks. The mean time for SS removal was 85.9 days (range, 39 to 132 days) after surgery. The patients were followed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 and 2 years. Two years of follow-up were completed for 87 (90%) of the patients (46 in the SB group and 41 in the SS group). RESULTS: The SS group had more injuries to the posterior malleolus than the SB group. At 2 years, the median AOFAS score was higher in the SB group than in the SS group (96 [interquartile range, or IQR, 90 to 100] versus 86 [IQR, 80 to 96]; p = 0.001), as was the median OMA score (100 [IQR, 95 to 100] versus 90 [IQR, 75 to 100]; p < 0.001). The SB group reported less pain during walking at 2 years than the SS group (median VAS score, 0 [IQR, 0 to 1] versus 1 [IQR, 0 to 2]; p = 0.008) and less pain during rest (median VAS score, 0 [IQR, 0 to 0] versus 0 [IQR, 0 to 1]; p = 0.04). There was no difference between treatments groups with regard to pain at night or during daily activities at 2 years. The SB group had a higher median EQ-5D Index score at 2 years (1.0 [IQR, 1 to 1] versus 0.88 [IQR, 0.8 to 1.0]; p = 0.005). Twenty of 40 patients in the SS group had a difference in the tibiofibular distance of ≥2 mm between the injured and uninjured ankles at 2 years, compared with 8 of 40 in the SB group (p = 0.009). Seven patients in the SS group had symptomatic recurrent syndesmotic diastasis during the treatment period compared with none in the SB group (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The patients treated with an SB had higher AOFAS scores, OMA scores, and EQ-5D Index scores as well as lower (better) VAS scores for pain during walking and pain during rest. Also, the SB group had less widening seen radiographically at 2 years than did the patients in the SS group. No differences in the scores for pain at night or during daily activities were identified. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

High complication rate after syndesmotic screw removal.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of complications after routine syndesmotic screw removal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent syndesmotic screw removal at our hospital between 2007 and 2012 were included in the study. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, radiographic evaluation and complications were recorded from the patients' charts. Questionnaires were sent by postal mail to all patients, to measure patient satisfaction and pain (VAS scales). RESULTS: 161 patients were included in the trial. A wound infection was found in 8 (5%) patients. 3 were regarded as serious infections requiring hospitalisation and intravenous antibiotics, 2 of those required surgical revisions. 5 patients were treated by oral antibiotics. Staphylococcus aureus was identified as the causing organism in all (6/8) cases with a positive culture. The patients with postoperative infection reported more pain (5.3 vs. 2.3; p=0.02) and were less satisfied (4.7 vs. 7.6; p=0.014) with their ankle compared to those without infection (T-test for independent samples). CONCLUSION: There were 5% wound infections after routine syndesmotic screw removal. Routine antibiotic prophylaxis effective against S. aureus should be administered when removing syndesmotic screws. In our institution we now use one single dose Cefalotin of 2g intravenously 30-60min before screw removal.