English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Syndesmotic fixation is essential in the management of unstable ankle fractures with syndesmotic disruption. It can be achieved either by rigid fixation with screws or dynamic fixation with suture-button devices. Syndesmosis screws are considered the gold standard for the stabilisation and fixation of distal tibiofibular syndesmotic injuries. We use both types of devices in our unit for the stabilisation of syndesmotic injuries. In our department, Arthrex TightRope® (Arthrex, Naples, FL) is the preferred suture-button device for the dynamic fixation of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Some studies have reported better outcomes with the use of suture-button devices. In this study, we aim to compare the outcomes with the use of both these devices.  Methodology  This retrospective cohort study was conducted from 1 June 2019 until 31 May 2020 which included all patients who underwent syndesmotic fixation. Data were collected from the Northern Ireland Electronic Care Record and the Northern Ireland Picture Archiving and Communication System. Primary outcomes included reoperation rates due to failure of syndesmotic hardware. Secondary outcomes included the comparison of complications (e.g. infection, wound problems, or loss of reduction) radiographic fixation/stability, duration of follow-up, and significant ongoing symptoms at the time of discharge from the clinic.  Results  A total of 53 patients underwent syndesmotic stabilisation during this period. In total, 34 patients underwent fixation with TightRope and 19 underwent syndesmotic screw fixation. Three patients (9%) had reoperation due to any cause in the TightRope group compared to four patients (21%) in the syndesmotic screw group. All four patients in the syndesmotic screws group underwent implant removal due to failure or symptoms due to implant. Only one patient (3%) in the TightRope group underwent implant removal due to ongoing pain [the other two (6%) patients included one with lateral ankle abscess and one with long distal fibula screws, both unrelated to the use of TightRope and TightRope left in situ at reoperation]. Rediastasis was reported in one (5.2%) patient with syndesmotic screws. The median duration of follow-up was 82 days in the syndesmotic screw group compared to 77.5 days in the TightRope group.  Conclusions  Based on our data, we report a lower incidence of implant-related problems and the need for implant removal with the use of TightRope. Quicker return to weight-bearing and slightly better radiographic stabilisation were noted as well. Our study has its limitations in terms of a small number of patients and the absence of functional outcomes as these were not routinely recorded at the time of discharge from the clinic.

Suture-Button Versus Syndesmotic Screw Fixation of Ankle Fractures: A Comparative Retrospective Review Over One Year