Syndesmotic Suture Button Fixation Results in Higher Tegner Activity Scale Scores When Compared to Screw Fixation: A Multicenter Investigation.

Foot & ankle specialist Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-26 DOI:10.1177/19386400231174829
Mitchel R Obey, Kevin Schafer, Lauren M Matheny, Christopher M McAndrew, Michael J Gardner, William M Ricci, Thomas O Clanton, Jonathon D Backus
{"title":"Syndesmotic Suture Button Fixation Results in Higher Tegner Activity Scale Scores When Compared to Screw Fixation: A Multicenter Investigation.","authors":"Mitchel R Obey, Kevin Schafer, Lauren M Matheny, Christopher M McAndrew, Michael J Gardner, William M Ricci, Thomas O Clanton, Jonathon D Backus","doi":"10.1177/19386400231174829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Suture buttons and metal screws have been used and compared in biomechanical, radiographic, and clinical outcome studies for syndesmotic injuries, with neither implant demonstrating clear superiority. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of both implants.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent syndesmosis fixation at 2 separate academic centers from 2010 through 2017 were compared. Thirty-one patients treated with a suture button and 21 patients treated with screws were included. Patients in each group were matched by age, sex, and Orthopaedic Trauma Association fracture classification. Tegner Activity Scale (TAS), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), patient satisfaction score, surgical failure, and reoperation rates were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients who underwent suture button fixation had significantly higher TAS scores than those who underwent screw fixation (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in FAAM ADL scores between cohorts (p = 0.08). Symptomatic hardware removal rates were similar (3.2% suture button cohort vs 9.0% in screw cohort). One patient (4.5%) underwent revision surgery secondary to syndesmotic malreduction after screw fixation, for a reoperation rate of 13.5%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with unstable syndesmotic injuries treated with suture button fixation had higher mean TAS scores compared to patients treated with screws. Foot and Ankle Ability Measure and ADL scores in these cohorts were similar.<b>Level of Evidence:</b> Level 3 Retrospective Matched Case-Cohort.</p>","PeriodicalId":73046,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle specialist","volume":" ","pages":"270-276"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","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/10.1177/19386400231174829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Suture buttons and metal screws have been used and compared in biomechanical, radiographic, and clinical outcome studies for syndesmotic injuries, with neither implant demonstrating clear superiority. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of both implants.

Methods: Patients who underwent syndesmosis fixation at 2 separate academic centers from 2010 through 2017 were compared. Thirty-one patients treated with a suture button and 21 patients treated with screws were included. Patients in each group were matched by age, sex, and Orthopaedic Trauma Association fracture classification. Tegner Activity Scale (TAS), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), patient satisfaction score, surgical failure, and reoperation rates were compared.

Results: Patients who underwent suture button fixation had significantly higher TAS scores than those who underwent screw fixation (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in FAAM ADL scores between cohorts (p = 0.08). Symptomatic hardware removal rates were similar (3.2% suture button cohort vs 9.0% in screw cohort). One patient (4.5%) underwent revision surgery secondary to syndesmotic malreduction after screw fixation, for a reoperation rate of 13.5%.

Conclusion: Patients with unstable syndesmotic injuries treated with suture button fixation had higher mean TAS scores compared to patients treated with screws. Foot and Ankle Ability Measure and ADL scores in these cohorts were similar.Level of Evidence: Level 3 Retrospective Matched Case-Cohort.

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
与螺钉固定术相比,缝合钮固定术可获得更高的泰格纳活动量表评分:一项多中心调查
背景:在治疗巩膜损伤的生物力学、影像学和临床结果研究中,缝合钮扣和金属螺钉都曾被使用和比较过,但这两种植入物都没有显示出明显的优越性。本研究旨在比较两种植入物的临床效果:对 2010 年至 2017 年期间在两个独立的学术中心接受巩膜固定术的患者进行比较。31名患者接受了缝合扣治疗,21名患者接受了螺钉治疗。每组患者的年龄、性别和创伤骨科协会骨折分类相匹配。比较了泰格纳活动量表(TAS)、足踝能力测量(FAAM)、患者满意度评分、手术失败率和再手术率:接受缝合扣固定术的患者的 TAS 评分明显高于接受螺钉固定术的患者(P < 0.001)。两组患者的 FAAM ADL 评分无明显差异(p = 0.08)。无症状的硬件移除率相似(缝合扣组为3.2%,螺钉组为9.0%)。一名患者(4.5%)在螺钉固定后因巩膜错位而接受了翻修手术,再次手术率为13.5%:结论:与使用螺钉固定的患者相比,使用缝合扣固定治疗的不稳定巩膜损伤患者的平均TAS评分更高。这两组患者的足踝能力测量和ADL评分相似:3 级回顾性匹配病例队列。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes for First Tarsometatarsal Arthrodesis Using an Intramedullary Nail for Hallux Valgus Deformity A Consecutive Case Series. Survey of Utilization of Weightbearing Computed Tomography Within AOFAS Membership. Association Between Pronation External Rotation IV Fracture Pattern and Regional Bone Density. The Wait Time for Surgery Following Injury Affects Functional Outcomes and Complications After an Ankle Fracture: A Propensity Score-Matched Multicenter Study, the TRON Study. Defining Operative Indications in Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review.
×
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