Factors associated with adverse events after distal tibiofibular syndesmosis fixation.

PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS: Factors associated with adverse outcomes following surgery for syndesmotic instability with associated closed fibula fracture are incompletely understood. The purpose of this study was to determine the pathoetiology and incidence of adverse events after stabilization of syndesmotic instability. In addition, we aimed to identify any patient or surgeon related factors that might be associated with unanticipated outcomes. METHODS: Between January 2000 and May 2015, a total of 849 adult patients who were surgically treated with either screw or suture button fixation for syndesmotic instability with associated fibula fracture without open wound were identified and retrospectively evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors associated with any postoperative complication or unplanned reoperation. RESULTS: Within one year after surgery, 10.7% (91 patients) suffered an infectious complication and 22.0% (187 patients) underwent unplanned reoperation. Factors associated with infectious complications were increased duration of hospital admission (OR: 1.08, p = .014), use of an external fixator device before ORIF (OR: 5.19 p < .001), peripheral vascular disease (OR: 4.33, p = .008), and osteoporosis (OR: 2.71, p = .022). For unplanned hardware removal specifically, patients' BMI below 30 was an associated risk factor. (OR: 1.50, p = .010). CONCLUSION: Certain patient groups have an increased risk of adverse events following the use of current surgical fixation methods for stabilizing the syndesmosis. Patients undergoing surgery for syndesmotic instability with associated fibula fracture without open wound should be counseled that up to 1 in 10 suffer an infectious complication and that 1 in 5 require unplanned hardware removal.

Reoperation Rate Differences Between Open Reduction Internal Fixation and Primary Arthrodesis of Lisfranc Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Controversy persists as to whether Lisfranc injuries are best treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) versus primary arthrodesis (PA). Reoperation rates certainly influence this debate, but prior studies are often confounded by inclusion of hardware removal as a complication rather than as a planned, staged procedure inherent to ORIF. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate whether reoperation rates, excluding planned hardware removal, differ between ORIF and PA. A secondary aim was to evaluate patient risk factors associated with reoperation after operative treatment of Lisfranc injuries. METHODS: Between July 1991 and July 2016, adult patients who sustained closed, isolated Lisfranc injuries with or without fractures and who underwent ORIF or PA with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were analyzed. Reoperation rates for reasons other than planned hardware removal were examined, as were patient risk factors predictive of reoperation. Two hundred seventeen patients met enrollment criteria (mean follow-up, 62.5 ± 43.1 months; range, 12-184), of which 163 (75.1%) underwent ORIF and 54 (24.9%) underwent PA. RESULTS: Overall and including planned procedures, patients treated with ORIF had a significantly higher rate of return to the operation room (75.5%) as compared to those in the PA group (31.5%, P < .001). When excluding planned hardware removal, however, there was no difference in reoperation rates between the 2 groups (29.5% in the ORIF group and 29.6% in the PA group, P = 1). Risk factors correlating with unplanned return to the operation room included deep infection ( P = .009-.001), delayed wound healing ( P = .008), and high-energy trauma ( P = .01). CONCLUSION: When excluding planned removal of hardware, patients with Lisfranc injuries treated with ORIF did not demonstrate a higher rate of reoperation compared with those undergoing PA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.