Mustafa Salah Hasan and Dhia Jafar Alsaadi and Falah Kadhim Hasan*

F.I.C.M.S Orthopaedic, Alkadhimain Medical City, Baghdad, Iraq

*Corresponding Author: Falah Kadhim Hasan, F.I.C.M.S Orthopaedic, Alkadhimain Medical City, Baghdad, Iraq.

Received: April 14, 2021; Published: May 20, 2021

Abstract

Background: Ankle fractures associated with syndesmotic injuries are increasing in number, need early detection and proper treatment. The distal tibiofibular articulation held by ligaments anteriorly and posteriorly in addition to the interosseous ligament, these ligaments resemble the syndesmosis. There are many methods for syndesmotic fixation includes screws or tight rope. Also there are much research about the number of screws and how many cortices should engage.

Objectives: To assess the early functional and radiological outcome in two types of syndesmotic fixation comparing the rigid quadricortical syndesmotic fixation with the more dynamic tricortical syndesmotic fixation.

Subjects and Methods: An analytic prospective comparative study was done in Al-Imamain Al-kadhimain medical city from Jun 2019 to October 2020, comparing the early functional and radiological outcomes of patients treated with tricortical versus quadricortical syndesmotic screw fixation in ankle fractures. The study conducted on 20 patients (13 males, 7 females) ranging in age between 19-56 years old, presented with clinical and radiological evidence of syndesmotic injury concomitant with ankle fracture either Weber B supination external rotation (SER) or Weber C pronation external rotation (PER) and pronation abduction (PA). The two different surgical approaches classified randomly every other case in to two groups, Group 1 (10 patients) treated by open XI reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fracture with tricortical screw fixation for their syndesmotic injury, and Group 2 (10 patients) treated by open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of ankle fracture with quadricortical screw fixation for their syndesmotic injury. The patients were followed up for a period of 6 months.

Results: The AOFAS ankle hind-foot score was significantly higher for patients treated with tricortical syndesmotic screw (mean = 70.9 ± 5.4) than patients treated with quadricortical syndesmotic screw (mean = 62.6 ± 4.4) (p = 0.002) at 3 months. After 6 months the score was not significantly higher for tricortical group (mean = 84.1 ± 9.1) compared to quadricortical group (mean = 80.3 ± 5.9) (p = 0.286). There was significant difference for pain which is lower in tricortical group (mean = 31.0 ± 3.1) compared to quadricortical group (mean = 24.0 ± 5.1) (p = 0.002).after 6 months there was no significant difference Between the two groups (p = 0.355).

Conclusion: Fixation with either tricortical screw or quadricortical screw for syndesmotic injury improve function of the joint in ankle fractures with syndesmotic injuries. There was no significant differences in functional or radiological outcomes between the two groups after six months of treatment.

Keywords: Ankle Fractures; Syndesmosis; Syndesmotic Injuries; Syndesmotic Fixation

References

1. Ray R., et al. “Ankle fractures with syndesmotic stabilisation are associated with a high rate of secondary osteoarthritis”. Foot and Ankle Surgery2 (2019): 180-185.
2. Ovaska MT., et al. “Predictors of poor outcomes following deep infection after internal fixation of ankle fractures”. Injury 7 (2013): 1002-1006.
3. Clanton TO and Paul P. “Syndesmosis injuries in athletes”. Foot and Ankle Clinics3 (2002): 529-549.
4. Wright RW., et al. “Ankle syndesmosis sprains in national hockey league players”. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 8 (2004): 1941-1945.
5. Harris J and Fallat L. “Effects of isolated Weber B fibular fractures on the tibiotalar contact area”. The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery 1 (2004): 3-9.
6. Waterman BR., et al. “Risk factors for syndesmotic and medial ankle sprain: role of sex, sport, and level of competition”. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 5 (2011): 992-998.
7. van Dijk CN., et al. “Classification and diagnosis of acute isolated syndesmotic injuries: ESSKA-AFAS consensus and guidelines”. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy4 (2016): 1200-1216.
8. Porter DA., et al. “Optimal management of ankle syndesmosis injuries”. Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine 5 (2014): 173.
9. Beumer A., et al. “A biomechanical evaluation of the tibiofibular and tibiotalar ligaments of the ankle”. Foot and Ankle International5 (2003): 426-429.
10. Lin C-F., et al. “Ankle syndesmosis injuries: anatomy, biomechanics, mechanism of injury, and clinical guidelines for diagnosis and intervention”. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy6 (2006): 372-84.
11. Zalavras C and Thordarson D. “Ankle syndesmotic injury”. JAAOS-Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 6 (2007): 330-339.
12. Yuen CP and Lui TH. “Suppl-4, M7: Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmosis: Anatomy, Biomechanics, Injury and Management”. The Open Orthopaedics Journal 11 (2017): 670.
13. Jelinek JA and Porter DA. “Management of unstable ankle fractures and syndesmosis injuries in athletes”. Foot and Ankle Clinics2 (2009): 277-298.
14. Rammelt S and Obruba P. “An update on the evaluation and treatment of syndesmotic injuries”. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 6 (2015): 601-614.
15. Mohammed R., et al. “Evaluation of the syndesmotic-only fixation for Weber-C ankle fractures with syndesmotic injury”. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 45 (2011): 454-458.
16. Phisitkul P., et al. “Forceps reduction of the syndesmosis in rotational ankle fractures: a cadaveric study”. JBJS24 (2012): 2256-2261.
17. Van Heest TJ and Lafferty PM. “Injuries to the ankle syndesmosis”. JBJS7 (2014): 603-613.
18. van den Bekerom MP., et al. “Which ankle fractures require syndesmotic stabilization?” The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery6 (2007): 456-463.
19. Fort NM., et al. “Management of acute injuries of the tibiofibular syndesmosis”. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology4 (2017): 449-459.
20. Schreiber JJ., et al. “Intraoperative contralateral view for assessing accurate syndesmosis reduction”. Orthopedics5 (2013): 360-361.
21. Vopat ML., et al. “Current trends in the diagnosis and management of syndesmotic injury”. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 1 (2017): 94-103.
22. Beaty JH., et al. “Campbell's operative orthopaedics”. 13th ed: Elsevier (2017).
23. Hak DJ and Lee M. “Ankle fractures: open reduction internal fixation”. Master Techniques in Orthopaedic Surgery-fractures (2006): 556-557.
24. Stuart K and Panchbhavi VK. “The fate of syndesmotic screws”. Foot and Ankle International5 (2011): 519-525.
25. Park JC and McLaurin TM. “Acute syndesmosis injuries associated with ankle fractures”. Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Diseases 1 (2009): 39-44.
26. Majid A., et al. “Comparative study between tricortical and quadricortical syndesmotic screw fixation in ankle injury with diastasis”. The Journal of Bangladesh Orthopaedic Society (JBOS) (2020): 163.
27. Høiness P and Strømsøe K. “Tricortical versus quadricortical syndesmosis fixation in ankle fractures: a prospective, randomized study comparing two methods of syndesmosis fixation”. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 6 (2004): 331-337.
28. Jain S., et al. “Comparative Study of Tricortical versus Quadricortical Syndesmosis Fixation in Ankle Fractures”. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics3 (2015): 132-137.
29. Monga P., et al. “Management of distal tibio-fibular syndesmotic injuries: a snapshot of current practice”. Acta Orthopaedica Belgica3 (2004): 365.
30. Schepers T., et al. “Technical aspects of the syndesmotic screw and their effect on functional outcome following acute distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury”. Injury 4 (2014): 775-779.
31. Peek A., et al. “Syndesmosis screws: how many, what diameter, where and should they be removed? A literature review”. Injury 8 (2014): 1262-1267.
32. Van Vlijmen N., et al. “Long-term results after ankle syndesmosis injuries”. Orthopedics 11 (2015): e1001-e1006.
33. Boyle M., et al. “Removal of the syndesmotic screw after the surgical treatment of a fracture of the ankle in adult patients does not affect one-year outcomes: a randomised controlled trial”. The Bone and Joint Journal12 (2014): 1699-1705.
34. Jasqui-Remba S., et al. “Changes in the radiological measurements of the tibiofibular syndesmal area in patients with Weber C ankle fractures who were treated with open reduction, internal fixation, and transyndesmal screw”. Acta Ortopédica Mexicana 6 (2015): 303-308.

Citation

Citation: Falah Kadhim Hasan., et al. “Is Tricortical Screw Better than Quadricortical Screw in Syndesmotic Fixation of Ankle Fractures?”. Acta Scientific Neurology 4.6 (2021): 39-50.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2021 Falah Kadhim Hasan., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.