| Literature DB >> 24053432 |
Guohui Xu1, Wei Chen, Qi Zhang, Juan Wang, Yanling Su, Yingze Zhang.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Syndesmotic diastasis is a common injury. Syndesmotic bolt and tightrope are two of the commonly used methods for the fixation of syndesmotic diastasis. Syndesmotic bolt can be used to reduce and maintain the syndesmosis. However, it cannot permit the normal range of motion of distal tibiofibular joint, especially the rotation of the fibula. Tightrope technique can be used to provide flexible fixation of the syndesmosis. However, it lacks the ability of reducing the syndesmotic diastasis. To combine the advantages of both syndemostic bolt and tightrope techniques and simultaneously avoid the potential disadvantages of both techniques, we designed the assembled bolt-tightrope system (ABTS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the primary effectiveness of ABTS in treating syndesmotic diastasis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24053432 PMCID: PMC3849036 DOI: 10.1186/1757-7241-21-71
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ISSN: 1757-7241 Impact factor: 2.953
Figure 1Four parts of ABTS, pre-cut nail, nut, button and the 2–0 FiberWire.
Figure 2The pre-operation radiograph shows that the fracture type was 44C23 by AO classification combined with distal tibiofibular diastasis.
Figure 3The fibular and medial malleolus fractures had been fixed.
Figure 4The tunnel had been created and the device was pulling from lateral to medial by hand.
Figure 5The nut was tightened.
Figure 6Knots were making after the nail was pulled to the proper position.
Patients’ demographics, mechanism of injury and fracture patterns
| | |
| | 8 |
| | 4 |
| 39.5 | |
| | |
| | 5 |
| | 7 |
| | |
| | 3 |
| | 5 |
| | 2 |
| | 2 |
| | |
| | 2 |
| | 1 |
| | 1 |
| | 1 |
| | 7 |
Figure 7Mortise and lateral view of the ankle joint radiograph showed union of the fibular and medial malleolus fractures and a normal syndesmosis at 1 year follow-up after operation.
The clinical and radiological evaluations
| 30.5 mm (range 23.7-39.1) | |
| | |
| | 9.1 mm (range 6.8-13.9) |
| | 3.1 mm (range 2.4-4.1) |
| | 3.2 mm (range 2.4-4.1) |
| | |
| | 9.8 mm (range 6.9-13.2) |
| | 4.1 mm (range 3–5) |
| | 4.1 mm (range 3.1-5.1) |
| | |
| | 2.0 mm (range 0–5.8) |
| | 8.4 mm (range 7–9.3) |
| | 8.4 mm (range 7–9.2) |
| | |
| | 95.4 (range 85–100) |
| | 96.3 (range 85–100) |
| | |
| | |
| | 56.4 (range 41–65) |
| | 49.9 (range 36–60) |
| | |
| | 57 (range 41–65) |
| | 50.3 (range 36–60) |
MCS medial clear space, TFCS tibiofibular clear space, TFOL tibiofibular overlap, AOFAS American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society, SF-12 Short Form-12 Health Survey questionnaire, MHS mental health summary, PHS physical health summary.
Figure 8The photograph was taken at 2 weeks after hardwares removal operation when patient returned to normal walking. This photograph showed that all hardwares were removed and no syndesmotic diastasis reoccured.