| Literature DB >> 35346150 |
Mingze Du1, Jun Li2, Chen Jiao1, Qinwei Guo1, Yuelin Hu1, Dong Jiang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For lateral ankle ligament rupture, surgical repair has been considered for patients requiring return to high-demanding sports. However, there is a lack of systematic research regarding arthroscopic treatment followed by ligament repair for severe acute ankle sprain. The purpose of this study was to analyze the mid-term outcomes of arthroscopy followed by open anatomic lateral ankle ligament repair surgery for acute lateral ankle sprain and the impact of ligament rupture site on the outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Acute ankle sprain; Anatomic ligament repair; Arthroscopy; Lateral ankle ligament; Return to sports
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35346150 PMCID: PMC8961918 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05260-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Care was taken to avoid the intermediate branch of the superficial peroneal nerve (a) and sural nerve (b)
Fig. 2A patient with an anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) tear at the talar site (a) and a calcaneofibular ligament (CFL) tear at the calcaneal site (b), which were identified in magnetic resonance images (MRI). The end of the ruptured ATFL was identified under arthroscopy (c). The ruptured ends were isolated (d), and the suture anchor was inserted into the insertion site (e,f). The ligament was then braided and pulled underneath the peroneal tendon (blue arrow) and fixed with the anchor wire (g, h). The extensor retinaculum was then sutured to the fibular periosteum (i)
Fig. 3A patient with avulsion fractures with a diameter of < 1 cm. We carefully peeled the ligaments from the surface and resected the fracture fragment then sutured the ligament tissue to the bone surface with anchors
Demographic characteristics of the 117 patients
| Characteristics | Patient cohort |
|---|---|
| Sex, | |
| Male | 85 (73) |
| Female | 32 (27) |
| Age, years | 26.5 ± 10.1 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 24.1 ± 3.3 |
| Injury time, days | 7.7 ± 4.2 |
| Follow-up, months | 46.4 ± 16.1 |
| OCLs, | |
| B-C | 15 (13) |
| D-F | 13 (11) |
| Avulsion fracture, | |
| Fibular | 10 (8) |
| Talus | 1(1) |
| Calcaneus | 1 (1) |
| Combined medial ligament injury, | 3 (3) |
| Osteophyte, | 10 (8) |
| Location of lateral ligament rupture, | |
| Proximal group | 48(41) |
| Middle group | 41 (35) |
| Distal group | 28 (24) |
| Fixation technique, | |
| Suture anchor | 76 (65) |
| Simple suture | 41 (35) |
BMI Body Mass Index, OCLs Osteochondral Lesions
Subjective outcomes before surgery and at final follow-up
| pre-operation | post-operation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| VAS pain | 6.13 ± 1.37 | 0.35 ± 0.90 | < 0.001* |
| AOFAS | 24.52 ± 8.04 | 98.15 ± 3.72 | < 0.001* |
| Tegner | 0.83 ± 0.61 | 5.03 ± 0.78 | < 0.001* |
VAS Visual Analog Scale, AOFAS American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society
*Statistically significant difference (p < 0.05)
Effect of the location of ligament tear on postoperative outcomes
| Proximal group | Middle group | Distal group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ||
| Recovery of sports | ||||
| Percentage (%) | 93 ± 12 | 89 ± 14 | 86 ± 13 | 0.037* |
| Time, months | 3.99 ± 1.09 | 4.58 ± 0.90 | 4.59 ± 1.27 | 0.009* |
| ROM restriction, | 7 (50) | 4 (31) | 3 (19) | 0.117 |
| Sprain recurrence, | 4 (40) | 4 (40) | 2 (20) | 0.809 |
| Satisfaction (%) | 83 ± 8 | 84 ± 9 | 83 ± 12 | 0.901 |
| VAS pain | ||||
| pre-operation | 6.15 ± 1.27 | 6.12 ± 1.36 | 6.11 ± 1.59 | 0.922 |
| post-operation | 0.23 ± 0.78 | 0.27 ± 0.71 | 0.68 ± 1.25 | 0.13 |
| AOFAS | ||||
| pre-operation | 25.25 ± 8.35 | 24.37 ± 7.87 | 23.50 ± 7.92 | 0.669 |
| post-operation | 98.92 ± 2.74 | 97.56 ± 4.50 | 97.68 ± 3.82 | 0.373 |
| Tegner | ||||
| pre-injury | 5.35 ± 0.81 | 5.37 ± 0.70 | 5.44 ± 0.77 | 0.867 |
| post-operation | 5.02 ± 0.76 | 5.15 ± 0.65 | 4.86 ± 0.97 | 0.209 |
ROM Range Of Motion, VAS Visual Analog Scale, AOFAS American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society
*Statistically significant difference (p < 0.05)