Stability of novel cow-hitch suture button coracoid bone graft fixation in Latarjet procedures: a biomechanical study.

BACKGROUND: The Latarjet procedure is widely used to address anterior shoulder instability, especially in case of glenoid bone loss. Recently, cortical suture button fixation for coracoid transfer has been used to mitigate complications seen with screw placement. The aim of this biomechanical study was to evaluate the stability of a novel and cost-effective cow-hitch suture button technique, designed to be performed through a standard open deltopectoral approach, and compare this to a well-established double suture button technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 12 fresh frozen cadaveric shoulders to undergo the Latarjet procedure with either 4 suture button (S&N EndoButton) fixations (SB group; n = 6, age 72 ± 9.8 years) or cow-hitch suture button technique using a 1.7-mm FiberTape looped sequentially in 2 suture buttons (Arthrex Pectoralis Button) placed from anterior on the posterior glenoid (CH-SB group; n = 6, age 73 ± 9.3 years). After fixation, all shoulders underwent biomechanical testing with direct loading on the graft via a material testing system. Cyclic loading was performed for 100 cycles (10-100 N) to determine axial displacement with time; each graft was then monotonically loaded to failure. RESULTS: The maximum cyclic displacement was 4.3 ± 1.6 mm for the cow-hitch suture button technique and 5.0 ± 1.7 mm for the standard double suture button technique (P = .46). Ultimate load to failure and stiffness were, respectively, 190 ± 82 N and 221 ± 124 N/mm for the CH-SB technique and 172 ± 48 N and 173 ± 34 N/mm for the standard double SB technique (P = .66 and .43). The most common failure mode was suture cut-through at the anteroinferior aspect of the glenoid for both fixation groups. CONCLUSIONS: The cow-hitch suture button technique resulted in a similar elongation, stiffness, and failure load compared to an established double suture button technique. Therefore, this cost-effective fixation may be an alternative, eligible for open approaches, to the established double suture button techniques.

Biomechanical Comparisons of All-Suture Suspensory Button versus Interference Screw for Inlay Subpectoral Bicep tenodesis.

BACKGROUND: All-suture buttons (ASB) and interference screw (IS) are commonly utilized in the inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis. However, the biomechanical characteristics of these two methods have not been compared directly. The aim of present study was to compare the biomechanical properties of ASB versus IS for inlay subpectoral biceps tendon tenodesis in a human cadaveric model. METHODS: Sixteen fresh-frozen human cadaveric shoulders were randomly divided into two experimental inlay biceps tenodesis groups: ASB or IS. After tenodesis, every specimen was preloaded at 5 N for 2 minutes, followed with a cyclic loading test from 5 to 70 N for 500 load cycles. Then the load-to-failure test was performed. Afterwards, the humerus was placed in a cylinder tube and secured with anchoring cement. Lastly, a two-point bending test was performed to determine the strength of the humerus. Destructive axial force was applied, and the failure strength and displacement were recorded. RESULTS: No difference in stiffness was observed between the two groups (ASB=27.4 ± 3.5 N/mm vs IS= 29.7 ± 3.0 N/mm; P=.270). Cyclic displacement was significantly greater in the ASB group (6.8 ± 2.6 mm) than the IS group (3.8 ± 1.1 mm; P=.021). In terms of failure load, there were no statistical differences among the two groups (P=.234). The ASB group was able to withstand significantly greater displacement (11.9 ± 1.6 mm) before failure than the IS group (7.8 ± 1.5mm; P=.001). During the humeral bending test, the ASB group exhibited significantly greater maximal load (2354.8 ± 285.1 N vs 2086.4 ± 296.1 N; P=.046) and larger displacement (17.8 ± 2.8mm vs 14.1± 2.8 mm; P=.027) before fracture. CONCLUSIONS: In inlay subpectoral bicep tenodesis, ASB fixation appears to offer comparable stiffness and failure load to that of IS fixation. Additionally, the ASB group exhibited greater resistance to load and displacement before humeral fracture. However, the ASB group did demonstrate increased cyclic displacement compared to IS group.

Better outcomes using suture button compared to screw fixation in talofibular syndesmotic injuries of the ankle: a level I evidence-based meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The present meta-analysis evaluated current level I clinical trials which compared the use of a suture button (SB) versus syndesmotic screw (SS) fixation techniques for syndesmosis injuries of the ankle. The outcomes of interest were to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications. It was hypothesised that SB might achieve better PROMs along with a lower rate of complications. METHODS: This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. In August 2023, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase were accessed. All the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which compared SB versus SS fixation for syndesmosis injuries of the ankle were accessed. Data concerning the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS), and Olerud-Molander score (OMS) were collected at baseline and at last follow-up. Data on implant failure, implant removal, and joint malreduction were also retrieved. RESULTS: Data from seven RCTs (490 patients) were collected. 33% (161 of 490) were women. The mean length of the follow-up was 30.8 ± 27.4 months. The mean age of the patients was 41.1 ± 4.1 years. Between the two groups (SB and SS), comparability was found in the mean age, and men:women ratio. The SS group evidenced lower OMS (P = 0.0006) and lower AOFAS (P = 0.03). The SS group evidenced a greater rate of implant failure (P = 0.0003), implant removal (P = 0.0005), and malreduction (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Suture button fixation might perform better than the syndesmotic screw fixation in syndesmotic injuries of the ankle.

All-suture fixation of syndesmotic injuries: a case series.

BACKGROUND: To retrospectively evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients treated for syndesmotic injuries with an all-suture construct technique and compare their patient reported outcome scores with historically published outcomes of syndesmotic injuries fixed with suspensory suture buttons. METHODS: This was a retrospective case series of patients treated at a Level 1 Trauma Center from May 1, 2018, to June 30, 2022. Ten patients aged 18 and older with unstable syndesmotic injuries treated with all-suture repair. Patients were excluded if they were treated with trans-osseous screws, had previous failed syndesmotic fixation, or suspensory suture button fixation. Patient-reported outcomes including Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle and hindfoot scores, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: In the patients with 6 weeks or more of radiographic follow-up (N = 9), there was no evidence of nonunion, loss of fixation, hardware complication, or whitling of the fibula by the suture. At final follow-up average VAS pain scores were 1.5 out of 10 (range 0-4; SD 1.2), AOFAS ankle and hindfoot scores averaged 89.6 out of 100 (range 86-100; SD 6.1). The pain subscale of the AOFAS score averaged 37.5 out of 40 (range 35-40; SD 2.5). The functional subscale of the AOFAS score averaged 46 out of 50 (range 44-50; SD 3.0). Stiffness was reported in one patient at their follow-up visits, which resolved with continued physical therapy. There were no superficial or deep infections. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this case series presents the first clinical outcomes of an all-suture fixation technique for treatment of unstable syndesmotic ankle injuries. Our results suggest that the all-suture fixation technique results in similar patient reported outcomes when compared with historically reported patient reported outcomes of suspensory suture button fixation, and low rates of complication or hardware failure.

Safe drilling zones for anteriorly, central, and posteriorly angulated syndesmotic stabilization devices.

PURPOSE: The purposes of the study were to (1) analyze the shape of the distal fibula at the location of syndesmotic stabilization and to (2) define safe zones at the distal-lateral fibula for three different drilling tunnel orientations: anteriorly-, posteriorly angulated and center-center. METHODS: Postoperative, bilateral CT images of adult patients that underwent syndesmotic stabilization (suture-button system) for an acute, unilateral ankle injury were analyzed. Manual axial CT reconstructions of the uninjured side were generated. First, the axial shape of the distal fibula was classified. The aspect ratio between the anterio-lateral and the posterior-lateral surfaces of the fibula was calculated to assess symmetry. Second, the same axial planes were used to define the safe zones. Each drilling-tunnel orientation (anterior, central, posterior) comprised a fixed medial tibial anchor point and a safe zone on the lateral fibula. For each of the three orientations, the most anteriorly and posteriorly drilling tunnel location was simulated. Next to a cumulative visual analysis, a quantitative analysis of the most anterior and posterior point on the anterio- and posterior-lateral surfaces was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 96 CT datasets were analyzed. (1) 81% of fibulae revealed a triangular convex-, 10% an irregular-, and 8% a quadrilateral shape. The lateral surface ratio was 1.0 ± 0.2 (range: 0.7-1.5), not differing between the fibula types (n.s.). (2) The safe corridor on the lateral surface of the fibula for an anteriorly angulated drilling tunnel was - 8% to - 41%, for a posteriorly angulated drilling tunnel was 0% to 46%, and for a center-center alignment - 7 ± 11% (range: - 28 to 18%). CONCLUSION: The meta-diaphyseal region of the distal fibula revealed a homogeneous crosssectional shape. The lateral apex of the fibula can serve as a landmark defining safe zones to place the drilling tunnels correctly. Applying these safe zones in clinical practice could help to avoid the misplacement of the syndesmotic fixation device. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective radiographic study.

Acromioclavicular joint suture button repair leads to coracoclavicular tunnel widening.

PURPOSE: Biomechanical evaluation of three different suture button devices used in acromioclavicular joint repair and analysis of their effect on post-testing tunnel widening. METHODS: Eighteen human shoulder girdles were assigned into three groups with a similar mean bone mineral density. Three different single-tunnel acromioclavicular repair devices were tested: (1) AC TightRope® with FiberWire; (2) AC Dog Bone™ Button with FiberTape; (3) Low Profile AC Repair System. Biomechanical testing was performed simulating the complex movement of the distal clavicle as follows. A vertical load of 80 N was applied continuously. The rotation of the clavicle about its long axis was set at 10° anterior and 30° posterior for 2500 cycles at 0.25 Hz. The horizontal translation of the clavicle was set at 6 mm medial and 6 mm lateral for 10,000 cycles at 1 Hz. The coracoclavicular distance was measured before and after testing. After testing, each sample underwent micro-CT analysis. Following 3D reconstruction, the area of the bone tunnels was measured at five defined cross sections. RESULTS: In TightRope® and Dog Bone™ groups, all samples completed testing, whereas in the Low Profile group, three out of six samples showed system failure. The mean absolute difference of coracoclavicular distance after testing was significantly greater in the Low Profile group compared to TightRope® and Dog Bone™ groups (4.3 ± 1.3 mm vs 1.9 ± 0.7 mm vs 1.9 ± 0.8 mm; p = 0.001). Micro-CT analysis of the specimens demonstrated significant tunnel widening in the inferior clavicular and superior coracoid regions in all three groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Significant tunnel widening can be observed for all devices and is primarily found in the inferior parts of the clavicle and superior parts of the coracoid. The Low Profile AC Repair System showed inferior biomechanical properties compared to the AC TightRope® and AC Dog Bone™ devices. Therefore, clinicians should carefully select the type of acromioclavicular repair device used and need to consider tunnel widening as a complication.

Arthroscopic Latarjet procedure and suture-button fixation: can we predict nonunion early?

BACKGROUND: The arthroscopic Latarjet procedure is a technically challenging technique that provides well-known results. The first series reported fixation with screws. An alternative fixation technique has been proposed, using a button, to improve the reproducibility and to decrease the complications due to screws. The first reports using this fixation technique have yielded comparable rates of fusion. The objective of this study was to assess the fusion rate and bone modifications with this type of fixation. METHODS: Two hundred sixteen patients were included in this prospective study. An arthroscopic Latarjet procedure, fixed with 1 button according to the Smith & Nephew technique, was performed by a single surgeon for the treatment of anterior instability. The radiographic protocol consisted of computed tomography scans at 3, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively. We measured the coronal and sagittal positions of the bone block, distance between the bone block and the glenoid, diameter of the glenoid tunnel, fusion rate, and time to fusion. RESULTS: The position was deemed flush in 92.6% of cases in the coronal plane and under the equator in 87.5% of cases in the sagittal plane. At last follow-up, we observed 9 cases of nonunion (4%), as well as 18 cases of delayed fusion. The fusion rate was 92% at 3 months and 96% at 6 months. For bone blocks that ultimately healed, the diameter of the glenoid tunnel was <2 mm in 62% of cases at 3 weeks and <1 mm in 90% of cases at 3 months. Conversely, the diameter of this tunnel significantly increased and was >3 mm in all cases of delayed union or nonunion. CONCLUSION: The described technique achieved a reliable position of the bone block and a very good fusion rate with a new type of fixation. The time to obtain fusion can be lengthy, occurring between the third and sixth months. The diameter of the glenoid tunnel was the best predictive factor for fusion. Widening of the glenoid tunnel diameter >3 mm during the first 3 weeks was the most predictive factor for delayed union or nonunion of the bone block. This finding is probably explained by a sliding effect of the sutures through this tunnel, comparable to the bungee effect in anterior cruciate ligament repair in the knee.

Current status of the management of isolated syndesmotic injuries in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Although non-fracture-related syndesmotic injuries of the ankle are relatively rare, they may lead to poor clinical outcome if initially undiagnosed or managed improperly. Despite a variety of literature regarding possibilities for treatment of isolated syndesmotic injuries, little is known about effective applications of different therapeutic methods in day-to-day work. The aim of this study was to assess the current status of the treatment of isolated syndesmotic injuries in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online-questionnaire, capturing the routine diagnostic workup including clinical examination, radiologic assessment and treatment strategies, was sent to all members of the German Society of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology (DGOU) and Association of Arthroscopic and Joint Surgery (AGA). Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft excel and SPSS. RESULTS: Each question of the questionnaire was on average answered by 431 ± 113 respondents. External rotation stress test (66%), squeeze test (61%) and forced dorsiflexion test (40%) were most commonly used for the clinical examination. In the diagnostic workup, most clinicians relied on MRI (83%) and conventional X-ray analysis (anterior-posterior 58%, lateral 41%, mortise view 38%). Only 15% of the respondents stated that there is a role for arthroscopic evaluation for the assessment of isolated syndesmotic injuries. Most frequently used fixation techniques included syndesmotic screw fixation (80%, 42% one syndesmotic screw, 38% two syndesmotic screws), followed by suture-button devices in 13%. Syndesmotic screw fixation was mainly performed tricortically (78%). While 50% of the respondents stated that syndesmotic screw fixation and suture-button devices are equivalent in the treatment of isolated syndesmotic injuries with respect to clinical outcome, 36% answered that syndesmotic screw fixation is superior compared to suture-button devices. CONCLUSIONS: While arthroscopy and suture-button devices do not appear to be widely used, syndesmotic screw fixation after diagnostic work-up by MRI seems to be the common treatment algorithm for non-fracture-related syndesmotic injuries in Germany.

Biomechanical Analysis of Tibiofibular Syndesmosis Injury Fixation Methods: A Finite Element Analysis.

The optimal treatment strategy after syndesmotic injuries is still controversial. In our study, we aimed to evaluate ideal fixation method in syndesmotic injury by using finite element analysis method. A 3D SolidWorks model file was created by taking computed tomography (CT) images of the area from the right foot base to the knee joint level of a healthy adult male. The intact model, injury model, and 8 different fixation models were created that 3.5 mm screw and suture-button were used in. The models were compared in terms of lateral fibular translation, posterior fibular translation and external rotation of fibula compared to tibia and stress values occurred on screws and suture-buttons. In the hybrid-1 model, lateral fibular translation and external fibular rotation values were obtained as close to the intact model. Von Mises stresses occurred in the screw (435.7 MPa) and suture-button (424.7 MPa) that used in hybrid-1 model was more than single screw at 4 cm model (316.8 MPa) and single suture-button at 2 cm model (160.7 MPa). In the Hybrid-1 model, the screw compensates for posterior fibular translation and external fibular rotation, while the suture-button compensates for lateral fibular translation. Also, the effect of the distal suture-button preventing diastasis in case of proximal screw failure, it was concluded that the hybrid-1 model can be used as a good treatment alternative in the surgical treatment of distal tibiofibular syndesmotic injuries.

Various Flexible Fixation Techniques Using Suture Button for Ligamentous Lisfranc Injuries: A Review of Surgical Options.

Contrary to Lisfranc joint fracture-dislocation, ligamentous Lisfranc injury can lead to additional instability and arthritis and is difficult to diagnose. Appropriate procedure selection is necessary for a better prognosis. Several surgical methods have recently been introduced. Here, we present three distinct surgical techniques for treating ligamentous Lisfranc employing flexible fixation. First is the "Single Tightrope procedure", which involves reduction and fixation between the second metatarsal base and the medial cuneiform via making a bone tunnel and inserting Tightrope. Second is the "Dual Tightrope Technique", which is similar to the "Single Tightrope technique", with additional fixation of an intercuneiform joint using one MiniLok Quick Anchor Plus. Last but not least, the "internal brace approach" uses the SwiveLock anchor, particularly when intercueniform instability is seen. Each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of surgical complexity and stability. These flexible fixation methods, on the other hand, are more physiologic and have the potential to lessen the difficulties that have been linked to the use of conventional screws in the past.

Comparison of functional outcome and complications of locking plate versus coracoclavicular fixation in the treatment of unstable distal clavicle fractures: the multicenter, propensity-matched TRON study.

PURPOSE: This multicenter, retrospective study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and complications between locking plate fixation and new coracoclavicular (CC) fixation for patients with unstable distal clavicle fracture. METHODS: We included 142 patients in this TRON study. The mean follow-up was 15.5 (6-31) months. The patients were divided into two groups: the locking plate group (Group L) and CC fixation group (Group C). To adjust for baseline differences between the groups, a propensity score algorithm was used to match two groups in a 1:1 ratio. After matching, we compared operation time and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score at 3 and 6 months postoperatively and at last follow-up as clinical outcomes and the rate of complications. RESULTS: After matching, 20 cases from each group remained. Operation time was shorter in Group C (75 [22, 111] vs. 100 [38, 120] min; P = 0.023). At 3 months postoperatively, UCLA score in Group C was better, but no significant differences between the groups were found at 6 months and last follow-up after surgery. The rate of complications was not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: CC fixation might be equivalent to locking plate fixation in clinical outcome, and the operation time is shorter than that required for locking plate fixation.

Suture button placed beneath plate fixation for complex distal clavicle fractures and acromioclavicular joint injuries: a technical note.

Patients with complex distal clavicle and acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries are at risk of loss of reduction, especially when plates are removed postoperatively. The purpose is to review the authors' preferred technique for treatment of distal clavicle and AC joint injuries utilizing combined suture button and plate fixation, aiming to optimize biomechanical strength of fixation and limit loss of reduction after implant removal. Pre-contoured locking plates or hook plates were utilized atop suture buttons to maintain reduction and optimize biomechanical strength. At final follow-up over one year after plate removal and suture button retention in thirteen patients, reduction was maintained to coracoclavicular interval 1.5 ± 1.4 mm less than contralaterally. DASH scores at final follow-up averaged 5.7 ± 2.5 (range: 3.3 - 11.7). Placing suture button fixation prior to and beneath plate fixation in complex AC joint injuries and distal clavicle fractures allows for maintained fixation and prevents loss of reduction after plate removal.

Editorial Commentary: Buttoning Up After Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: The Eden-Hybinette Procedure Is an Effective Salvage After Failed Latarjet.

Operative management of anterior glenohumeral dislocation can confer significant improvements in subjective shoulder function, pain, and overall stability. Although the coracoid-based Latarjet procedure has long been considered the ultimate treatment for complex anterior shoulder instability with glenoid or bipolar bone loss, few authors have considered the unimaginable question: what do you do when a patient fails Latarjet? A modified arthroscopic technique of the Eden-Hybinette procedure allows for revision anterior glenoid augmentation of critical glenoid bone loss with autologous tricortical iliac crest, while suture button fixation may obviate hardware complications previously seen with bicortical screw fixation. Although distal tibial allograft provides excellent congruity, viable articular cartilage, and no harvest site morbidity, financial costs and graft availability must also be considered. With favorable patient-reported outcomes, excellent rates of radiographic union, and reliable return to sport, the Eden-Hybinette procedure with suture button-based construct offers a viable alternative for patients with advanced glenoid bone loss (>20%) or revision scenarios.

Tensioning device increases coracoid bone block healing rates in arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with suture-button fixation.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using suture buttons for coracoid fixation to avoid the complications associated with screws during the Latarjet procedure. However, achieving bone block healing is critical for successful shoulder stabilization and return to sport. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the healing rates and positioning of the coracoid bone block fixed with cortical suture buttons that were either manually tensioned (using a knot pusher) or mechanically tensioned (using a tensioning device) during arthroscopic Latarjet procedures. METHODS: This prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study enrolled 69 consecutive patients (mean age, 27 years) who underwent an arthroscopic guided Latarjet procedure with suture-button fixation. Hand tensioning was performed in the first 34 shoulders, whereas the next 35 shoulders underwent mechanical tensioning. Twelve patients (17%) had a history of failed Bankart stabilization. The characteristics of the patients in each group in terms of age, sex, type of sport, bone loss, number of previous failed surgical procedures, smoking, and length of follow-up were comparable. Intraoperatively, the tensioning device was set at 100 N successively 3 times until complete immobilization of the bone block was confirmed, as assessed with a probe. The primary outcome measure was coracoid bone block union and position on computed tomography scan images at 6 months' follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included functional outcome scores, shoulder stability, return to sports, and complications at last follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, the rate of bone block healing was 74% (25 of 34 patients) in the hand-tensioning group and 94% (33 of 35 patients) in the mechanical tensioning group (P = .043). Smoking was an independent risk factor associated with nonunion (P < .001) in each group. Patient age, size of the preoperative glenoid bone defect (<20% or >20%), and a history of surgery were not found to have any influence. The tensioning modality did not affect the bone block position, which was subequatorial in 92% of the cases and flush with the glenoid rim in 92%. At a mean of 34 months of follow-up (range, 24-62 months), 96% of the patients (65 of 69) had a stable shoulder and 87% returned to sports. At final follow-up, no significant difference in clinical scores was noted between the groups; no neurologic or hardware complications were observed. CONCLUSION: Mechanical tensioning achieves significantly higher healing rates than hand tensioning during the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure with suture-button fixation. The use of a suture-tensioning device is a key step to the suture-button fixation technique during arthroscopic Latarjet procedures. By making the suture-button construct rigid, the tensioning device transforms the initially flexible suture into a "rigid fixation", similar to a bolt (or a rivet).

"Flexible nature of fixation" in syndesmotic stabilization of the inferior tibiofibular joint affects the radiological reduction outcome.

PURPOSE: Fibular mobility after suture button stabilization (SBS) of inferior tibiofibular joint (syndesmosis) injuries has been described. This effect is called the "flexible nature of fixation (FNF)." In this study, we aimed to quantify FNF in syndesmotic stabilization. METHODS: Postoperative bilateral computed tomography (CT) of ankle fractures with syndesmosis stabilization by SBS or syndesmotic screw (SYS) was retrospectively analyzed. The transverse offset (TO) and vertical offset (VO) were defined by evaluating the drill channels. The reduction outcome was evaluated by the side-to-side difference between the clear space and the anterior tibiofibular distance (antTFD). The calculated anterior tibiofibular distance (cal-antTFD) was calculated by subtracting the TO from the validated antTFD. Subsequently, a reevaluation of the reduction outcomes after SYS or SBS stabilization was performed using cal-antTFD. RESULTS: Sixty patients (44 with SBS and 16 with SYS stabilization) were analyzed. The intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities for TO and VO were excellent (α > 0.92). SYS stabilization showed lower mean TO (- 0.02 mm; SD 0.14) and VO (0.11 mm; SD, 0.29 mm) than SBS stabilization (TO 1.16 mm, SD 1.4 mm; VO 0.2 mm, SD 0.8 mm; p = 0.001). The rate of malreduction according to cal-antTFD was higher than that of antFTD (p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: The presented method, which evaluates the position of the tibial to the fibular drill channel, allowed the quantification of the "FNF." The often described difference in the dynamic stabilization of SBS compared to the rigid stabilization by SYS could be objectified. Considering cal-antTFD illustrates that FNF potentially reduces the rate of malreduction in SBS stabilization.

Does the orientation of syndesmosis fixative device affect the immediate reduction of the distal tibiofibular joint?

INTRODUCTION: Incongruent stabilization of the distal tibiofibular joint (syndesmosis) results in poorer long-term outcome in malleolar fractures. The aim was to analyze whether the orientation of the syndesmotic stabilization would affect the immediate reduction imaged in computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The syndesmotic congruity in 114 ankle fractures with stabilization of the syndesmosis were retrospectively analyzed in the post-operative bilateral CT scans. The incisura device angle (IDA) was defined and correlated with the side-to-side difference of Leporjärvi clear-space (ΔLCS), anterior tibiofibular distance (ΔantTFD) and Nault talar dome angle (ΔNTDA) regardless of the stabilization technique and separately for suture button system and syndesmotic screw. Asymmetric reduction was defined as ΔLCS > 2 mm and |ΔantTFD|> 2 mm. RESULTS: Regardless of the stabilization technique, no correlation between the IDA and the ΔLCS (r = 0.069), the ΔantTFD (r = 0.019) nor the ΔNTDA (r = 0.177) could be observed. There were no differences between suture button system and syndesmotic screw. Asymmetrical reduction was detected in 46% of the cases, while sagittal asymmetry was most common. No association was found between the orientation of stabilization device and occurrence of asymmetrical reduction (p > 0.05). The results of suture button system and syndesmotic screw were comparable in this respect (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Poor correlation between the orientation of the stabilization device and the immediate post-operative congruity of the syndesmosis could be shown. In contrast to current literature, this study did not show difference of suture button system over syndesmotic screw in this regard. Careful adjustment of the fibula in anteroposterior orientation should be given special attention.

The Clinical Efficacy of Suture-Button Fixation and Trans-Syndesmotic Screw Fixation in the Treatment of Ankle Fracture Combined With Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmosis Injury: A Retrospective Study.

Twenty percent of ankle fractures present with concomitant syndesmosis injury which results in poor clinical outcomes. Surgical stabilization of the syndesmosis can be achieved with either trans-syndesmotic screws or a suture button device. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical efficacy of suture button fixation and trans-syndesmotic screw fixation in the treatment of ankle fracture combined with distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury. A retrospective analysis was conducted by enrolling 76 patients with ankle fractures combined with distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury who were admitted in our trauma center from January 2018 to January 2019, including 34 cases of suture button group and 42 cases of the syndesmotic screw group with a mean follow-up period of 16 ± 7 (range 12-21) months. The demographic data included gender, age, injury mechanism, AO classification and the operation duration were recorded, the radiographic and clinical outcomes were determined by tibiofibular clear space, tibiofibular overlap distance, complications, and the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score at the last follow-up. All the indexes were compared between the 2 groups to discover the related statistical differences. With the numbers available, no significant difference could be detected in the surgical duration, tibiofibular clear space, tibiofibular overlap distance, total complication rate, and middle-term Olerud-Molander Ankle scores between the 2 groups. However, the suture button fixation group showed higher early stage Olerud-Molander Ankle scores (p = .027) and shorter full weightbearing time (p = .018) than that of syndesmotic screw fixation group. Considering the outcomes, we conclude that the suture button fixation not only shows equivalent efficacy to the traditional syndesmotic screw, but also has advantages of allowing early weightbearing, low requirements for routine removal.

Investigating the Radiological Outcomes of Syndesmosis Injuries in Ankle Fracture Patients After Suture Button Fixation.

Concomitant syndesmotic injury occurs in 10% of ankle fractures. Anatomic reduction and maintenance of this reduction is critical in ensuring ankle stability and preventing long-term complications. This is a retrospective cohort study aimed at evaluating the mid-term radiological outcomes of syndesmotic injuries in ankle fracture patients after surgical fixation with suture button device. The study group included 33 patients. Plain radiographs including anteroposterior, lateral and mortise views of the affected ankle were performed preoperatively, postoperatively and at 3-month follow-up. Anteroposterior views were used to measure the amount of tibiofibular overlap and tibiofibular clear space. Paired Student's t test and linear model regression were performed. Between the immediate postoperative and 3-month follow-up period, there was a mean decrease in tibiofibular overlap of 0.841 (±2.07) mm (p = .0259). There was a mean increase in tibiofibular clear space of 0.621 (±1.46) mm (p = .0201). In addition, we found significant correlation between fracture type and change in tibiofibular clear space (p = .047). Our study showed that there is statistically significant widening of the syndesmosis after suture button fixation at 3-month follow-up as evidenced by reduced tibiofibular overlap and increase in tibiofibular clear space. However, they remain within the maximum threshold for acceptable syndesmotic widening of 1.5 mm. Further correlation between radiological outcomes and patient function is needed to determine clinical significance of these changes.

Suture button versus syndesmotic screw in ankle fractures - evaluation with 3D imaging-based measurements.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate reduction of syndesmotic injuries can result in disabling clinical outcomes. The aim of the study was to compare syndesmosis congruity after fixation by syndesmotic screws (SYS) or a suture button system (SBS) using three-dimensional (3D) computed imaging techniques. METHODS: In a retrospective single-center study, patients with unilateral stabilization of an ankle fracture with a syndesmotic injury and post-operative bilateral CT scans were analyzed using a recently established 3D method. The side-to-side differences were compared for tibio-fibular clear space (∆CS), translation angle (∆α), and vertical offset (∆z) among patients stabilized with syndesmotic screws or suture button system. Syndesmotic malreduction was defined for ∆CS > 2 mm and for |∆α| > 5°. ∆CS and ∆α were correlated with two-dimensional (2D) measurements. RESULTS: Eighteen patients stabilized with a syndesmosis screw and 29 stabilized with a suture button system were analyzed. After stabilization, both groups revealed mild diastasis (SYS: mean ∆CS 0.3 mm, SD 1.1 mm vs SBS: mean ∆CS 0.2 mm, SD 1.2 mm, p = 0.710). In addition, both stabilization methods showed slight dorsalization of the fibula (SYS: mean ∆α 0.5°, SD 4.6° vs SBS: mean ∆α 2.1°, SD 3.7°, p = 0.192). Also, restoration of the fibula-to-tibia length ratio also did not differ between the two groups (SYS: mean Δz of 0.5 mm, SD 2.4 mm vs SBS: mean Δz of 0 mm, SD 1.2 mm; p = 0.477). Malreduction according to high ∆α was most common (26% of cases), with equal distribution between the groups (p = 0.234). ∆CS and ∆α showed good correlation with 2D measurements (ρ = 0.567; ρ = 0.671). CONCLUSION: This in vivo analysis of post-operative 3D models showed no differences in immediate post-operative alignment after syndesmotic screws or suture button system. Special attention should be paid to syndesmotic malreduction in the sagittal orientation of the fibula in relation to the tibia in radiological control of the syndesmotic congruity as well as intra-operatively.

Static versus dynamic fixation of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.

PURPOSE: Multiple Level I meta-analyses were conducted comparing traditional static vs. more recently introduced dynamic strategies of fixation for injuries of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis (TFS). The aim of this review was to assess their robustness and methodological quality, providing support in the choice of a treatment strategy in case of TFS injury using the highest level of evidence. METHODS: In this systematic review, conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, meta-analyses/systematic reviews comparing static and dynamic fixation methods after acute TFS injury were identified. The robustness of studies was evaluated using the fragility index (FI) for meta-analysis and the fragility quotient (FQ). The risk of bias was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. Finally, the Jadad was applied to select the study which provided the highest quality of evidence to develop recommendations for the fixation strategy of these lesions. RESULTS: Out of 1.302 records, four Level I meta-analyses were included in this study. Analyzing the statistically significant dichotomous outcomes, the median FI was 3.5 (IQR, 2 to 5.5; range, 1 to 9), while the median FQ was 1.9% (IQR, 1 to 3.5; range 0.35 to 4.4). In total, 37% had an FI of 2 or less and 75% of outcomes had a FI of 4 or less. According to the AMSTAR score and Jadad algorithm, the largest meta-analysis was selected as the highest evidence provided so far. CONCLUSION: The meta-analyses with statistically significant dichotomous outcomes comparing dynamic and static fixation for treating injuries of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis are fragile, with a change in less than four patients or less than 2% of the study population sufficient to reverse a significant outcome to nonsignificant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.