Mini Fragment and Small Fragment Screws are Comparable in Acute Syndesmotic Injury.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q2 Medicine Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1053/j.jfas.2025.01.003
Stein B M van den Heuvel, Diederick Penning, Jens A Halm, Tim Schepers
{"title":"Mini Fragment and Small Fragment Screws are Comparable in Acute Syndesmotic Injury.","authors":"Stein B M van den Heuvel, Diederick Penning, Jens A Halm, Tim Schepers","doi":"10.1053/j.jfas.2025.01.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ankle fractures are often accompanied by syndesmotic injuries, contributing to instability and potential long term complications. Syndesmotic injuries are traditionally fixed with either small fragment (3.5-mm diameter) or large fragment (4.5-mm diameter) syndesmotic screws. With regards to the recent emergence of less prominent implants for ankle fracture, this study was set out to compare the outcomes of mini fragment screws (2.7-mm or 2.8-mm diameter) and small fragment screws in syndesmotic fixation. Eighty-seven patients with traumatic syndesmotic injuries were retrospectively included for this study. Forty-four patients underwent mini fragment fixation and 43 patients underwent standard small fragment fixation. After-treatment was similar in both groups. Primary outcome consisted of the incidence of malreduction and secondary dislocation within three months. Secondary objectives were the incidence of the overall complication rate and implant removal rate. In total, malreduction was observed in three patients (3.4%) and secondary dislocation in two patients (2.3%), with no significant differences between the mini fragment and small fragment groups. Mini fragment fixation demonstrated a significantly lower overall complication rate (2.3%) compared to the small fragment group (16.3%)(p = .030). Implant removal rates were similar between the groups (27.3% for mini fragment and 27.9% for small fragment screws). This study suggests that both screw types are effective for fixation of acute syndesmotic injuries, with comparable malreduction and secondary dislocation rates. Prospective studies with longer follow-up, including functional outcome, are needed for comprehensive insights into optimal syndesmotic screw selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":50191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2025.01.003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ankle fractures are often accompanied by syndesmotic injuries, contributing to instability and potential long term complications. Syndesmotic injuries are traditionally fixed with either small fragment (3.5-mm diameter) or large fragment (4.5-mm diameter) syndesmotic screws. With regards to the recent emergence of less prominent implants for ankle fracture, this study was set out to compare the outcomes of mini fragment screws (2.7-mm or 2.8-mm diameter) and small fragment screws in syndesmotic fixation. Eighty-seven patients with traumatic syndesmotic injuries were retrospectively included for this study. Forty-four patients underwent mini fragment fixation and 43 patients underwent standard small fragment fixation. After-treatment was similar in both groups. Primary outcome consisted of the incidence of malreduction and secondary dislocation within three months. Secondary objectives were the incidence of the overall complication rate and implant removal rate. In total, malreduction was observed in three patients (3.4%) and secondary dislocation in two patients (2.3%), with no significant differences between the mini fragment and small fragment groups. Mini fragment fixation demonstrated a significantly lower overall complication rate (2.3%) compared to the small fragment group (16.3%)(p = .030). Implant removal rates were similar between the groups (27.3% for mini fragment and 27.9% for small fragment screws). This study suggests that both screw types are effective for fixation of acute syndesmotic injuries, with comparable malreduction and secondary dislocation rates. Prospective studies with longer follow-up, including functional outcome, are needed for comprehensive insights into optimal syndesmotic screw selection.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery
Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery ORTHOPEDICS-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
234
审稿时长
29.8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery is the leading source for original, clinically-focused articles on the surgical and medical management of the foot and ankle. Each bi-monthly, peer-reviewed issue addresses relevant topics to the profession, such as: adult reconstruction of the forefoot; adult reconstruction of the hindfoot and ankle; diabetes; medicine/rheumatology; pediatrics; research; sports medicine; trauma; and tumors.
期刊最新文献
Mini Fragment and Small Fragment Screws are Comparable in Acute Syndesmotic Injury. Patient-reported outcomes using PROMIS after tarsal tunnel release surgery. Union Rates Following Power Rasp Joint Preparation for Foot and Ankle Arthrodesis: A Retrospective Study of 418 Fusions. Relationship between controlling nutritional status (CONUT) and surgical site infection (SSI) following elective foot and ankle surgery. First Metatarsal Osteotomy with an Intramedullary Locking Plate is a Good Alternative for the Reintervention of Recurrent Hallux Valgus.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1