Clinical outcomes of an olive wire and external fixator versus a metallic screw in the treatment of inferior tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries in ankle fractures.

BACKGROUND: Metal screws are the most widely used in treating syndesmotic injuries, but failure and the rigidity of the screws can threaten the success of the treatment and increase the cost of care. We have provided an alternative with an olive wire and external fixator(OWEF) used for syndesmotic fixation. METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal follow-up study was conducted. From February 2011 to January 2018, 58 of 72 patients with ankle fractures and associated syndesmotic disruption were treated with either screw or OWEF fixation. The costs, complications, and clinical outcomes using Olerud-Molander score and Visual Analog score in screw and OWEF fixation group were compared. RESULTS: We found the severity of the injury, BMI of the patients and the different fixation methods were determinants of the complications and clinical outcomes. But if no malreduction of the syndesmosis was present, no difference in clinical result was detected. CONCLUSION: The OWEF method appeared to be at least equally functional and effective to screw fixation while maintaining possible lower complication rate. LEVELS OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Comparison of MIS vs. open PLIF/TLIF with regard to clinical improvement, fusion rate, and incidence of major complication: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate whether MiTLIF could reduce the complication rate while maintaining the similar clinical result to that of open procedures. METHODS: A search of the literature was conducted on pubmed or EMBASE. A database including patient clinical information was created. A systematic review of eligible studies with multivariate regression analysis was performed to quantitatively review the correlation of VAS improvement rate and the performance of MiTLIF. RESULTS: Fourteen articles with a minimum of 12-month follow-up met our inclusion criteria. The hypothesis of homogeneity could be accepted. The fixed-effects model was used to calculate the summary risk ratio (odds ratio). In the pooled analysis, the summary risk ratio (odds ratio) in patients with MiTLIF against those with open procedure for fusion rate, complication rate and revision/readmission rate was 0.99 (p = 0.36), 1.15 (p = 0.5) and 2.59 (p = 0.003), respectively, suggesting that MiTLIF was a risk factor for revision/readmission. Multivariate regression analysis showed that the percentage of male patients and the length of surgery exert a significant impact on VAS improvement rate. The selection of MiTLF was not significant. CONCLUSION: Fusion rate and complication rate for both open and MiTLIF were similar. Moreover, the MiTLIF group tended to have a higher revision/readmission rate, which might be associated with the deep learning curve. Therefore, to achieve the level of surgical skill required of an MiTLIF surgeon, many years of training and experience are necessary. Otherwise, MiTLIF may yield unsatisfactory result upon patients.