PURPOSE: We have been able to diagnose tibiofibular syndesmosis injury by ankle arthroscopy, and in the present study we compare these results with the results from plain radiographs. TYPE OF STUDY: Case series. METHODS: Thirty-eight type-B (Weber system) distal fibular fractures in 38 patients were diagnosed to determine whether tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption was present. According to the Lauge-Hansen system, 16 patients had supination-external rotation fractures and 22 had pronation-abduction fractures. Standard non-weight-bearing anteroposterior radiographs and mortise radiographs were evaluated. Furthermore, ankle arthroscopy was performed on all patients. RESULTS: Tibiofibular syndesmosis disruptions were diagnosed in 16 of the 38 patients (42%) by anteroposterior radiography, 21 of 38 patients (55%) by mortise radiography, and 33 of 38 patients (87%) by ankle arthroscopy. All of the patients who were diagnosed with tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption by anteroposterior radiography and mortise radiography were also confirmed by ankle arthroscopy to have injured their tibiofibular syndesmosis. In 12 patients, ankle arthroscopy was the only method used to diagnose the tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption. CONCLUSIONS: Ankle arthroscopy excels in term of the diagnosis ratio for tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption compared with both anteroposterior and mortise radiography. Therefore, we conclude that ankle arthroscopy is necessary for the correct diagnosis of tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption.
PURPOSE: We have been able to diagnose tibiofibular syndesmosis injury by ankle arthroscopy, and in the present study we compare these results with the results from plain radiographs. TYPE OF STUDY: Case series. METHODS: Thirty-eight type-B (Weber system) distal fibular fractures in 38 patients were diagnosed to determine whether tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption was present. According to the Lauge-Hansen system, 16 patients had supination-external rotation fractures and 22 had pronation-abduction fractures. Standard non-weight-bearing anteroposterior radiographs and mortise radiographs were evaluated. Furthermore, ankle arthroscopy was performed on all patients. RESULTS: Tibiofibular syndesmosis disruptions were diagnosed in 16 of the 38 patients (42%) by anteroposterior radiography, 21 of 38 patients (55%) by mortise radiography, and 33 of 38 patients (87%) by ankle arthroscopy. All of the patients who were diagnosed with tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption by anteroposterior radiography and mortise radiography were also confirmed by ankle arthroscopy to have injured their tibiofibular syndesmosis. In 12 patients, ankle arthroscopy was the only method used to diagnose the tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption. CONCLUSIONS: Ankle arthroscopy excels in term of the diagnosis ratio for tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption compared with both anteroposterior and mortise radiography. Therefore, we conclude that ankle arthroscopy is necessary for the correct diagnosis of tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption.
Authors: Thomas O Clanton; Charles P Ho; Brady T Williams; Rachel K Surowiec; Coley C Gatlin; C Thomas Haytmanek; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Maayke N van Sterkenburg; Christiaan J A van Bergen; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2010-04-21 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: J Vega; F Malagelada; J Karlsson; G M Kerkhoffs; M Guelfi; M Dalmau-Pastor Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Bart Lubberts; Daniel Guss; Bryan G Vopat; Anne H Johnson; C Niek van Dijk; Hang Lee; Christopher W DiGiovanni Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 4.342