Syndesmotic Screw Fixation Versus Suture Button Versus Tibiotalocalcaneal Nail Treatment in Syndesmotic Ankle Fractures: A Meta-Analysis.

Thomas Cho, Helen R Yan, Michael Uematsu, Christian Harter, Jiayong Liu
{"title":"Syndesmotic Screw Fixation Versus Suture Button Versus Tibiotalocalcaneal Nail Treatment in Syndesmotic Ankle Fractures: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Thomas Cho, Helen R Yan, Michael Uematsu, Christian Harter, Jiayong Liu","doi":"10.1177/19386400251318965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Syndesmotic ankle fractures occur when damage to the syndesmosis complex is combined with a malleolar fracture. This can result in severe pain, weakness, and instability. Surgical interventions include syndesmotic screw fixation (SS), suture button fixation (SB), and tibiotalocalcaneal nail (TTC). This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of these treatment methods for syndesmotic ankle fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted on PubMed and Embase for comparison studies that included at least 2 surgical interventions and at least one of the relevant functional outcomes and/or complication metrics until June 2024. The Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) was used to compare functional outcomes, and it is a self-reported outcome measure that evaluates the symptoms and function of those with ankle fractures, while infections and reoperations were reported to compare complication outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4. A P-value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. The risk of bias was assessed with Review Manager 5.4. and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 18 studies with a total of 1,040 patients were ultimately included in this study. The SS had a significantly higher OMAS 2-year follow-up compared to TTC. The TTC had a significantly lower infection rate compared to SS. The SB had a significantly higher OMAS at both 1-year and 2-year follow-ups than SS. The SB had a significantly lower reoperation rate compared to SS. The SB had a significantly higher OMAS at both 1-year and 2-year follow-ups than TTC. The SB had a significantly lower infection rate compared to TTC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SB emerges as the preferred treatment method for syndesmotic ankle fractures, while TTC stands as a viable alternative. The SB is recommended as the primary surgical intervention for patients with syndesmotic ankle fractures due to its superior clinical benefits when compared to TTC and SS.</p><p><strong>Levels of evidence: </strong>3.</p>","PeriodicalId":73046,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle specialist","volume":" ","pages":"19386400251318965"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & ankle specialist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19386400251318965","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Syndesmotic ankle fractures occur when damage to the syndesmosis complex is combined with a malleolar fracture. This can result in severe pain, weakness, and instability. Surgical interventions include syndesmotic screw fixation (SS), suture button fixation (SB), and tibiotalocalcaneal nail (TTC). This meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes of these treatment methods for syndesmotic ankle fractures.

Methods: A literature search was conducted on PubMed and Embase for comparison studies that included at least 2 surgical interventions and at least one of the relevant functional outcomes and/or complication metrics until June 2024. The Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) was used to compare functional outcomes, and it is a self-reported outcome measure that evaluates the symptoms and function of those with ankle fractures, while infections and reoperations were reported to compare complication outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4. A P-value ≤ .05 was considered statistically significant. The risk of bias was assessed with Review Manager 5.4. and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

Results: A total of 18 studies with a total of 1,040 patients were ultimately included in this study. The SS had a significantly higher OMAS 2-year follow-up compared to TTC. The TTC had a significantly lower infection rate compared to SS. The SB had a significantly higher OMAS at both 1-year and 2-year follow-ups than SS. The SB had a significantly lower reoperation rate compared to SS. The SB had a significantly higher OMAS at both 1-year and 2-year follow-ups than TTC. The SB had a significantly lower infection rate compared to TTC.

Conclusion: The SB emerges as the preferred treatment method for syndesmotic ankle fractures, while TTC stands as a viable alternative. The SB is recommended as the primary surgical intervention for patients with syndesmotic ankle fractures due to its superior clinical benefits when compared to TTC and SS.

Levels of evidence: 3.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Syndesmotic Screw Fixation Versus Suture Button Versus Tibiotalocalcaneal Nail Treatment in Syndesmotic Ankle Fractures: A Meta-Analysis. Asymptomatic Preaxial Polydactyly of Bifid Hallux Without a Supernumerary Digit Presenting With Earlobe Malformations: A Rare Case Report. Correction of Distal Metatarsal Articular Angle in Hallux Valgus Surgery Utilizing a Minimally Invasive Extra-Articular Metaphyseal Distal Transverse Osteotomy. ChatGPT Achieves Only Fair Agreement with ACFAS Expert Panelist Clinical Consensus Statements. Custom 3-Dimensional-Printed Oncologic Endoprosthesis for Reconstruction of the Calcaneus A Case Report.
×
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