Literature DB >> 27672016

Biomechanical Comparison of 3 Current Ankle Syndesmosis Repair Techniques.

Thomas O Clanton1,2, Scott R Whitlow1,2, Brady T Williams1, Daniel J Liechti1, Jonathon D Backus1,2, Grant J Dornan1, Adriana J Saroki1, Travis Lee Turnbull1, Robert F LaPrade1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Significant debate exists regarding optimal repair for unstable syndesmosis injuries. Techniques range from screw fixation, suture-button fixation, or a combination of the two. In this study, 3 common repairs were compared using a simulated weightbearing protocol with internal and external rotation of the foot.
METHODS: Twenty-four lower leg specimens with mean age 54 years (range, 38-68 years) were used for testing. Following creation of a complete syndesmotic injury (AITFL, ITFL, PITFL, interosseous membrane), specimens were repaired using 1 of 3 randomly assigned techniques: (1) one 3.5-mm syndesmotic screw, (2) 1 suture-button construct, and (3) 2 divergent suture-button constructs. Repairs were cycled for 500 cycles between 7.5 Nm of internal/external rotation torque under a constant 750 N axial compressive load in a neutral dorsiflexion position. At 0, 10, 100, and 500 cycles, torsional cyclic loading was interrupted to assess torsional resistance to rotation within a physiologic range of motion (15 degrees external rotation to 10 degrees internal rotation). Torque (Nm), rotational position (degrees), and 3-dimensional data were collected throughout the testing to characterize relative spatial relationships of the tibiofibular articulation.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between repair techniques in resistance to internal and external rotation with respect to the intact syndesmosis. Three-dimensional analysis revealed significant differences between repair techniques for sagittal fibular translation with external rotation of the foot. Screw fixation had the smallest magnitude of posterior sagittal translation (2.5 mm), and a single suture-button construct demonstrated the largest magnitude of posterior sagittal translation (4.6 mm). Screw fixation also allowed for significantly less anterior sagittal translation with internal rotation of the foot (0.1 mm) when compared to both 1 (2.7 mm) and 2 (2.9 mm) suture-button constructs.
CONCLUSION: All repairs provided comparable rotational stability to the syndesmosis; however, no repair technique completely restored rotational stability and tibiofibular anatomic relationships of the preinjury state. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Constructs were comparable across most conditions; however, when repairing injuries with a suture-button construct, a single suture-button construct may not provide sufficient resistance to sagittal translation of the fibula.

Entities:  

Keywords:  anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament; biomechanics; interosseous tibiofibular ligament; posterior inferior tibiofibular ligament; suture-button; syndesmosis screw

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27672016     DOI: 10.1177/1071100716666278

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Foot Ankle Int        ISSN: 1071-1007            Impact factor:   2.827


  15 in total

1.  Syndesmosis screw breakage: An analysis of multiple breakage locations.

Authors:  Josh W Vander Maten; Matthew McCracken; Jiayong Liu; Nabil A Ebraheim
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-01-22

2.  Biomechanics comparison between endobutton fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation for syndesmotic injury ankle fracture; a finite element analysis and cadaveric validation study.

Authors:  Papangkorn Meekaew; Permsak Paholpak; Taweechok Wisanuyotin; Winai Sirichativapee; Wilasinee Sirichativapee; Weerachai Kosuwon; Yuichi Kasai
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-09-05

3.  A 10-Year Follow-Up of Ankle Syndesmotic Injuries: Prospective Comparison of Knotless Suture-Button Fixation and Syndesmotic Screw Fixation.

Authors:  Jan Niklas Altmeppen; Christian Colcuc; Christian Balser; Yves Gramlich; Alexander Klug; Oliver Neun; Sebastian Manegold; Reinhard Hoffmann; Sebastian Fischer
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 4.964

4.  Hybrid Fixation Restores Tibiofibular Kinematics for Early Weightbearing After Syndesmotic Injury.

Authors:  Neel K Patel; Calvin Chan; Conor I Murphy; Richard E Debski; Volker Musahl; MaCalus V Hogan
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-09-09

5.  Sagittal instability with inversion is important to evaluate after syndesmosis injury and repair: a cadaveric robotic study.

Authors:  Neel K Patel; Conor I Murphy; Thomas R Pfeiffer; Jan-Hendrik Naendrup; Jason P Zlotnicki; Richard E Debski; MaCalus V Hogan; Volker Musahl
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2020-03-30

6.  Diagnostic capability of dynamic ultrasound evaluation of supination-external rotation ankle injuries: a cadaveric study.

Authors:  Cara L Fisher; Tebyan Rabbani; Katelyn Johnson; Rustin Reeves; Addison Wood
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  APKASS Consensus Statement on Chronic Syndesmosis Injury, Part 2: Indications for Surgical Treatment, Arthroscopic or Open Debridement, and Reconstruction Techniques of Suture Button and Screw Fixation.

Authors:  Hiroaki Kurokawa; Hongyun Li; Chayanin Angthong; Yasuhito Tanaka; Yujie Song; Zhongmin Shi; Samuel K K Ling; Patrick Yung; Seung Hwan Han; Yinghui Hua; Chen Jiao; Jianchao Gui; Qi Li
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-06-21

8.  Biomechanical Comparison of 3 Syndesmosis Repair Techniques With Suture Button Implants.

Authors:  Andrew S Parker; David P Beason; Jonathan S Slowik; Jefferson B Sabatini; Norman E Waldrop
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2018-10-24

9.  Comparison of tendon suture fixation and cortical screw fixation for treatment of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: A case-control study.

Authors:  Liuhong Song; Zhifu Liao; Zhongqiang Kuang; Shiyan Qu; Wei Zhang; Yang Yuan; Teng Fang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-08-21       Impact factor: 1.817

10.  Comparison of suture-button and screw fixation in the treatment of ankle syndesmotic injuries: Cohort study protocol.

Authors:  Xiaoning Liu; Guang Jin; Chengdong Piao; Zhuan Zhong; Fei Chang; Bingzhe Huang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-08-07       Impact factor: 1.817

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.