Management of syndesmotic injuries of the ankle

in EFORT Open Reviews
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University General Hospital Reina Sofía, Avda Intendente Jorge Palacios 1, Murcia 30003, Spain
  • | 2 Regional Statistical Center, Treasury and public administration council, Murcia, Spain
  • | 3 Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University General Hospital Reina Sofía, Murcia, Spain

Jorge de-las-Heras Romero, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University General Hospital Reina Sofía, Avda Intendente Jorge Palacios 1, Murcia 30003, Spain. E-mail: jorgeheras@gmail.com
Open access

  • Injuries to the tibioperoneal syndesmosis are more frequent than previously thought and their treatment is essential for the stability of the ankle mortise.

  • Recognition of these lesions is essential to avoid long-term morbidity.

  • Diagnosis often requires complete history, physical examination, weight-bearing radiographs and MRI.

  • Treatment-oriented classification is mandatory.

  • It is recommended that acute stable injuries are treated conservatively and unstable injuries surgically by syndesmotic screw fixation, suture-button dynamic fixation or direct repair of the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament.

  • Subacute injuries may require ligamentoplasty and chronic lesions are best treated by syndesmotic fusion.

  • However, knowledge about syndesmotic injuries is still limited as recommendations for surgical treatment are only based on level IV and V evidence.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2017;2:403–409. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

Abstract

  • Injuries to the tibioperoneal syndesmosis are more frequent than previously thought and their treatment is essential for the stability of the ankle mortise.

  • Recognition of these lesions is essential to avoid long-term morbidity.

  • Diagnosis often requires complete history, physical examination, weight-bearing radiographs and MRI.

  • Treatment-oriented classification is mandatory.

  • It is recommended that acute stable injuries are treated conservatively and unstable injuries surgically by syndesmotic screw fixation, suture-button dynamic fixation or direct repair of the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament.

  • Subacute injuries may require ligamentoplasty and chronic lesions are best treated by syndesmotic fusion.

  • However, knowledge about syndesmotic injuries is still limited as recommendations for surgical treatment are only based on level IV and V evidence.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2017;2:403–409. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

Introduction

The term syndesmotic injury is used to describe a lesion of the ligaments that connect the distal fibula and the tibial notch surrounded on both sides by the anterior and posterior tibial tubercles, with or without an associated injury of the deltoid ligament. It includes four major ligaments: the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament (AITFL), which limits the fibular external rotation; the interosseous ligament (IOL), which limits the lateral translation of the fibula; the posterior inferior tibiofibular ligament (PITFL), which prevents the posterior fibular translation; and the inferior transverse ligament, which limits posterior talar displacement (Fig. 1).1 On the other hand, the deltoid ligament has the function of preventing talar abduction, pronation and external rotation. Syndesmotic lesions with associated damage of the deltoid ligament produce a still greater instability of the talus.2 This instability, if uncorrected, can lead to chronic instability that can finally develop into degenerative arthritis.3

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Drawing showing the ligaments of the lateral side of the ankle. Reproduced with permission.1

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 2, 9; 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

The first case of syndesmotic injury was described by Quenu in 19074 as a tibioperoneal diastasis after a ligamentous disruption and thereafter began to be studied in more depth. It has been classically described as being much less common than those of the lateral ligament, representing 1% to 18% of ligamentous lesions of the ankle.5,6 However, recent studies show that its incidence is much higher, in the range of 17% to 74% of all sports injuries of the ankle, due in part to the improvement in the diagnosis and understanding of the mechanisms of production of these lesions.7,8 On the other hand, it is still difficult to understand completely how these injuries actually occur, and as a consequence, their treatment remains controversial in many cases.9

This article aims to review what we currently know about the clinical-radiological diagnosis, classification and management of these complex injuries.

Clinical presentation

It is very common to consider syndesmotic injuries rather simplistically, employing a physiotherapeutic treatment without having a true and complete evaluation. As in most injuries, careful history-taking and physical examination are very important to arrive at a correct diagnosis and therefore an effective treatment.

Severe oedema is not usually present in this injury at the time of examination, as opposed to ankle sprains where it is more frequent. This should make us suspicious, especially with increasing pain felt with external rotation or forced dorsiflexion of the ankle. An antalgic heel-raised gait pattern and tenderness with palpation of the AITFL is usually present.10 In more severe cases, this lesion may be associated with a deltoid or anterior talo-fibular ligament injury.11

The difficulty that sometimes exists in detecting this injury has led to the development of numerous clinical examination tests, including the ‘external rotation’ test, the ‘Cotton’ test, the ‘fibular-translation’ test, the ‘squeeze’ test and the ‘crossed-leg’ test.12 These tests may be applicable to both acute and chronic lesions.

The European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy-Ankle & Foot Associates (ESSKA-AFAS) consensus panel2 recommends that clinical tests include: tenderness on palpation over the AITFL and PITFL, the more proximal the pain, the greater the extent of the lesion; the ‘fibular translation’ test; and the ‘Cotton’ test.

The ‘fibular translation’ test is performed by drawing the fibula forward and backward with the tibia stabilised, while the ‘Cotton’ test is performed while attempting translation of the talus from side-to-side with the ankle in a neutral position; increased translation as compared with the contralateral side accompanied by pain, make these tests positive (Figs 2 and 3).12,13 The ‘external rotation’ test, ‘squeeze’ test and ‘crossed-leg’ tests are excluded from the consensus as they have a low positive predictive value and poor intra-examiner reliability.14 Despite this, efforts must be made to undertake level I and II diagnostic accuracy studies to determine the specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative likelihood ratios.2

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

‘Fibular translation’ test. The fibula is translated from anterior to posterior on the tibia. The test is positive when increased anteroposterior movement is felt compared with the opposite ankle.

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 2, 9; 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

‘Cotton’ test. Medial and lateral forces are applied to the talus with the ankle in the neutral position. The test is positive when increased mediolateral movement is felt compared with the opposite ankle.

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 2, 9; 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

Imaging

Diagnostic imaging is mainly based on simple radiograph and MRI for both acute and chronic lesions. Appropriate imaging to assess changes in mortise alignment and affected ligaments are mandatory to optimise treatment.

Radiographic imaging should include three views of the ankle: anteroposterior (AP); mortise; and lateral. A mortise view taken with the patient positioned in unilateral weight-bearing is the most accurate way to assess displacement, but not all patients will tolerate this position immediately following the injury due to pain. Bilateral weight-bearing or non-weight-bearing radiographs can be considered instead. Radiographic evaluation with full-length AP and lateral views of the leg should be performed to rule out a Maisonneuve fracture2,12 on plain radiographs. These include increased tibiofibular clear space and decreased tibiofibular overlap. The first parameter is represented by the space between the medial border of the fibula and the lateral border of the posterior tibial prominence. This distance in both AP and mortise views should be < 6 mm with an intact syndesmosis. The other parameter is the maximal overlap between the medial border of the fibula and the lateral border of the distal tibia. Normal tibiofibular overlap for the AP view is > 6 mm. Normal tibiofibular overlap for the mortise view should be > 1 mm. Both parameters should be measured 1 cm above the tibial plafond (Fig. 4).2,11

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Radiographic measurements of the ankle in the anteroposterior view at 1 cm above tibial plafond. Depicted tibiofibular clear space (orange arrows) and tibiofibular overlap (blue lines).

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 2, 9; 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

Nevertheless, it has been estimated that plain radiographs have 44% to 58% specificity only, so a radiographic diagnosis based solely on these tests would result in a high number of false positives.15,16 Therefore, in cases of doubt, a CT scan is recommended to precisely assess the position of the fibula in the incisura. It is more sensitive than plain radiography in detecting syndesmotic injuries based on diastasis.12 Ultrasonography is also not recommended because of low reliability and its dependence on the investigator.2

MRI has a near-100% specificity in all cases of syndesmotic injury with high inter-observer agreement.17 MRI displays the structures of the syndesmosis and allows for the grading of ligamentous injuries (Table 1).12

Table 1.

Grading of syndesmotic injuries according to MRI findings

GradeMRI findingsPathologic lesion
IOedema adjacent to an intact ligamentStretching of the ligament without fibre disruption
IIThickening of the ligament with partial fibre disruption and associated oedemaPartial tearing of the ligament
IIIDiscontinuity of the ligament and extensive oedemaComplete tear of the ligament

MRI is useful for diagnosing tibiofibular syndesmotic disruption because it enables good visualisation of the AITFL and the PITFL and is not invasive. Furthermore, MRI is able to clearly define the lesion and associated injuries and can be useful in determining prognosis following a syndesmosis sprain.2

Classification

Recently, Van Dijk et al,2 in their ESSKA-AFAS consensus panel, thoroughly revised the classifications most used by the different authors to date.

They classify syndesmotic injuries depending on the time elapsed since trauma as acute (less than six weeks), subacute (between six weeks and six months) and chronic (more than six months), as management will be different regarding the time frame.2

Acute injuries can be categorised into stable and unstable. Stable sprains are characterised by a lesion of the AITFL, with or without IOL, with an intact deltoid ligament. Unstable sprains also include lesions of the deltoid ligament and can be divided into latent and frank. Latent diastasis compromises AITFL lesion with or without IOL and the deltoid ligament lesion, and frank diastasis lesion of all syndesmotic ligaments and the deltoid ligament (Fig. 5).2

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Lateral radiograph showing dislocation of the ankle with complete injury of all syndesmotic ligaments and deltoid ligament.

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 2, 9; 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

Finally, subacute injuries can be further subdivided into repairable or non-repairable depending on the presence or absence of adequate remnants of AITFL, and chronic can be further subdivided based on its association or not with arthritic ankle changes (Fig. 6).12

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Classification of syndesmotic injuries of the ankle.

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 2, 9; 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

Management

Acute injuries: conservative treatment

Syndesmotic sprains without instability should be treated non-operatively as they usually heal after conservative management.18

The most widespread protocol is the three-phase approach. The first phase of the treatment includes rest, ice, compression and elevation for a period of one to two weeks along with non-weight-bearing immobilisation, preferably in a controlled ankle movement walker boot, so as to avoid stiffness. In the second phase, walking in a functional brace can be started, together with physiotherapy including joint mobilisation, strength training and restoration of basic ankle functions. The final phase includes the training of neuromuscular control and proprioception until complete recovery.10,15 Stable injuries have a very good outcome. Amendola et al18 reported that most patients return to good or excellent function once their injury recovered, although they should be monitored for a minimum of six months to rule out complications such as heterotopic ossification, syndesmotic calcification or anterior impingement syndrome secondary to fibrous scar formation.13 The average time to return to normal activities is between four and eight weeks.3

Acute injuries: surgical treatment

Any acute syndesmotic ligament rupture with frank or latent instability of the ankle should be managed operatively.2 The goals of surgery are reduction and maintenance of the structures in their correct position so that the ligaments can heal properly.12 This is achieved by syndesmotic screw fixation, suture-button dynamic fixation or repair of the AITFL with direct sutures, suture anchors or screws with washers.9

Screw fixation is probably the most frequently used technique to treat these lesions. They can be inserted percutaneously with the ankle in neutral position, once a good indirect reduction is obtained with a tibiofibular clamp (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Tibiofibular clamp placed before proceeding to screw fixation.

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 2, 9; 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

Quadricortical fixation with two 4.5-mm screws is preferred, as this technique is more rigid, with less occurrence of syndesmotic widening during healing, and easier removal if screw failure occurs.19 It has been proven that two screws offer greater resistance than a single one and also that screws of 4.5 mm are more resistant than those of 3.5 mm.20 Larger screws or more than two screws are not advised because screws > 4.5 mm may induce fibular fracture.21 The screws should be placed 2 cm or 3 cm above the joint line to avoid further injury to the ligaments and angled 20° to 30° anteromedially, as recommended by some authors.22,23 Full weight-bearing is not recommended for at least two months, until the screws are removed, to avoid breakage or damage to the ankle joint.11,24,25 Some authors recommend usage of one or two trans-syndesmosis screws incorporated with a one-third tubular plate to obtain a more consistent structure (Figs 8 and 9).3 There is no definitive evidence for the need for screw removal after syndesmotic fixation.26,27

Fig. 8
Fig. 8

One-third tubular plate with two tri-cortical screws to treat a Maisonneuve fracture, pre- and post-operatively.

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 2, 9; 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

Fig. 9
Fig. 9

Pre- and post-operative radiographs of the procedure mentioned in Figure 8.

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 2, 9; 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

To avoid problems associated with screws, in particular the long time required non-weight-bearing, suture-­button fixation appeared to be a good alternative. It is sufficient to stabilise the syndesmosis during healing, allowing for some physiological movement,28-31 although biomechanical studies have proved that a suture button provides less syndesmotic reduction than screws.32 Therefore, it is advisable to tension the system with the ankle partially in plantar-flexion, allowing for an even tighter closure of the mortise (Figs 10 and 11). The position of the implants is the same as the position of the screws (Fig. 12). The correct position of fixation is the most relevant prognostic parameter either using screws or suture-button implants.33 Progressive full weight-bearing as tolerated is allowed after two to three weeks. In the meantime, the patient should wear a walker boot and practise only slight weight-bearing.

Fig. 10
Fig. 10

Operative photograph showing plantarflexion of the ankle before tensioning the implant.

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 2, 9; 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

Fig. 11
Fig. 11

Operative photograph showing tensioning of the implant.

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 2, 9; 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

Fig. 12
Fig. 12

Anteroposterior radiograph showing an example of plate fixation combined with dynamic suture button.

Citation: EFORT Open Reviews 2, 9; 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160084

Subacute and chronic injuries

It is considered that non-acute lesions do not resolve with conservative treatment alone and often require surgical treatment.34

In subacute (six weeks to six months) injuries, the goal is repair or reconstruction of the syndesmosis and protection with screw fixation. The AITFL should preferably be sutured with or without anchors. Non-repairable ligament should be replaced by a ligamentoplasty to restore normal function of the distal tibiofibular joint. An autologous peroneus brevis or longus tendon may be used, although there are only a few papers in the literature which mention it.9,35

In chronic (more than six months) injuries, a syndesmotic fusion is recommended although the level of evidence for surgical treatment in this situation is very low (levels IV and V). The technique usually implies the use of a rotated bone plug also fixed with screws. It is noted by several surgeons that this procedure normally produces no limitation of dorsiflexion nor sustained discomfort and is a good alternative in these cases of long duration where no other options are available.36-39

The post-operative period after these techniques will require protected non-weight-bearing for at least six weeks. Screws can be removed from eight weeks to 12 weeks post-operatively. Thereafter, progressive weight-bearing can be started along with an exercise programme.35

Previous ankle osteoarthritis is a predictor of poor outcome of these techniques, so tibiotalar arthrodesis is then preferred.35,40

Lesions of the ankle syndesmosis may lead to significant disability and time loss. Early recognition and appropriate treatment are the keys to restore stability, mobility and strength, with the aim of regaining the pre-injury function of the ankle. Otherwise chronic pain, prolonged recovery, recurrent sprains, heterotopic ossification, ankle instability and, finally, osteoarthritis are likely. Unfortunately, these lesions are difficult to diagnose and improving outcomes from these complex injuries requires awareness of mechanism of injury, a detailed physical examination, including the ‘fibular translation’ test and the ‘Cotton’ test among others, and appropriate imaging using least high-quality plain radiographs, MRI or CT scans.

Acute instability of the syndesmosis must be treated surgically by placing a syndesmotic screw or a suture button. Sometimes AITFL repair is all that is needed. Subacute (six weeks to six months) injuries are best treated by ligament repair and temporary syndesmotic screw fixation or, in cases of severely damaged ligaments, ligamentoplasty. Chronic (more than six months) injuries should be treated by distal tibiofibular rotated bone-plug fusion. In cases of ankle osteoarthritic changes, ankle fusion should be considered.

Outcomes obtained in recent studies on each technique are encouraging, but it must be stated that these treatment options are still based on level IV and V evidence. There is a need for better guidelines for the diagnosis and classification of these lesions together with more extensive prospective studies comparing different surgical procedures to better understand these lesions and correctly guide the best treatment individually.

ICMJE Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Funding statement

No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

References

  • 1

    No authors listed. File:Ankle en.svg. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1981086 (date last accessed 11 September 2017).

  • 2

    van Dijk CN, Longo UG, Loppini M et al.. Classification and diagnosis of acute isolated syndesmotic injuries: ESSKA-AFAS consensus and guidelines. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016;24:1200-1216.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Porter DA, Jaggers RR, Barnes AF, Rund AM. Optimal management of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Open Access J Sports Med 2014;5:173-182.

  • 4

    Quenu E. Du diastasis de l’articulation tibio-peronie’re inferieure. Rev Chir (Paris) 1907;36:62-90. (In French)

  • 5

    Fallat L, Grimm DJ, Saracco JA. Sprained ankle syndrome: prevalence and analysis of 639 acute injuries. J Foot Ankle Surg 1998;37:280-285.

  • 6

    Boytim MJ, Fischer DA, Neumann L. Syndesmotic ankle sprains. Am J Sports Med 1991;19:294-298.

  • 7

    Clanton TO, Paul P. Syndesmosis injuries in athletes. Foot Ankle Clin 2002;7:529-549.

  • 8

    Wright RW, Barile RJ, Surprenant DA, Matava MJ. Ankle syndesmosis sprains in national hockey league players. Am J Sports Med 2004;32:1941-1945.

  • 9

    Del Buono A, Florio A, Boccanera MS, Maffulli N. Syndesmosis injuries of the ankle. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2013;6:313-319.

  • 10

    Nussbaum ED, Hosea TM, Sieler SD, Incremona BR, Kessler DE. Prospective evaluation of syndesmotic ankle sprains without diastasis. Am J Sports Med 2001;29:31-35.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Lin CF, Gross ML, Weinhold P. Ankle syndesmosis injuries: anatomy, biomechanics, mechanism of injury, and clinical guidelines for diagnosis and intervention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006;36:372-384.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Thormeyer JR, Leonard JP, Hutchinson M. Syndesmotic injuries in athletes. In: Zaslav KR, ed. An international perspective on topics in sports medicine and sports injury. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech, 2012:423-456.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Mulligan EP. Evaluation and management of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Phys Ther Sport 2011;12:57-69.

  • 14

    Alonso A, Khoury L, Adams R. Clinical tests for ankle syndesmosis injury: reliability and prediction of return to function. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998;27:276-284.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Press CM, Gupta A, Hutchinson MR. Management of ankle syndesmosis injuries in the athlete. Curr Sports Med Rep 2009;8:228-233.

  • 16

    Takao M, Ochi M, Naito K et al.. Arthroscopic diagnosis of tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption. Arthroscopy 2001;17:836-843.

  • 17

    Oae K, Takao M, Naito K et al.. Injury of the tibiofibular syndesmosis: value of MR imaging for diagnosis. Radiology 2003;227:155-161.

  • 18

    Amendola A, Williams G, Foster D. Evidence-based approach to treatment of acute traumatic syndesmosis (high ankle) sprains. Sports Med Arthrosc 2006;14:232-236.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Hansen M, Le L, Wertheimer S, Meyer E, Haut R. Syndesmosis fixation: analysis of shear stress via axial load on 3.5-mm and 4.5-mm quadricortical syndesmotic screws. J Foot Ankle Surg 2006;45:65-69.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Thompson MC, Gesink DS. Biomechanical comparison of syndesmosis fixation with 3.5- and 4.5-millimeter stainless steel screws. Foot Ankle Int 2000;21:736-741.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Amendola A. Controversies in diagnosis and management of syndesmosis injuries of the ankle. Foot Ankle 1992;13:44-50.

  • 22

    Albers GHR, de Kort AFCC, Middendorf PRJM, van Dijk CN. Distal tibiofibular synostosis after ankle fracture. A 14-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1996;78-B:250-252.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    McBryde A, Chiasson B, Wilhelm A et al.. Syndesmotic screw placement: a biomechanical analysis. Foot Ankle Int 1997;18:262-266.

  • 24

    Scranton PE Jr. Isolated syndesmotic injuries: diastasis of the ankle in the athlete. Tech Foot Ankle Surg 2002;1:88-93.

  • 25

    Wuest TK. Injuries to the distal lower extremity syndesmosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1997;5:172-181.

  • 26

    Walley KC, Hofmann KJ, Velasco BT, Kwon JY. Removal of hardware after syndesmotic screw fixation: a systematic literature review. Foot Ankle Spec 2017;10:252-257.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Dingemans SA, Rammelt S, White TO, Goslings JC, Schepers T. Should syndesmotic screws be removed after surgical fixation of unstable ankle fractures? a systematic review. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1497-1504.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Rigby RB, Cottom JM. Does the Arthrex TightRope® provide maintenance of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis? A 2-year follow-up of 64 TightRopes® in 37 patients. J Foot Ankle Surg 2013;52:563-567.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Cottom JM, Hyer CF, Philbin TM, Berlet GC. Treatment of syndesmotic disruptions with the Arthrex Tightrope: a report of 25 cases. Foot Ankle Int 2008;29:773-780.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Thornes B, Shannon F, Guiney AM, Hession P, Masterson E. Suture-button syndesmosis fixation: accelerated rehabilitation and improved outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;431:207-212.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Thornes B, Walsh A, Hislop M, Murray P, O'Brien M. Suture-endobutton fixation of ankle tibio-fibular diastasis: a cadaver study. Foot Ankle Int 2003;24:142-146.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Forsythe K, Freedman KB, Stover MD, Patwardhan AG. Comparison of a novel FiberWire-button construct versus metallic screw fixation in a syndesmotic injury model. Foot Ankle Int 2008;29:49-54.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Rammelt S, Zwipp H, Grass R. Injuries to the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: an evidence-based approach to acute and chronic lesions. Foot Ankle Clin 2008;13:611-633.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Parlamas G, Hannon CP, Murawski CD et al.. Treatment of chronic syndesmotic injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013;21:1931-1939.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    van den Bekerom MP, de Leeuw PA, van Dijk CN. Delayed operative treatment of syndesmotic instability. Current concepts review. Injury 2009;40:1137-1142.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Tornetta P III, Spoo JE, Reynolds FA, Lee C. Overtightening of the ankle syndesmosis: is it really possible? J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2001;83-A:489-492.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Albers GH, de Kort AF, Middendorf PR, van Dijk CN. Distal tibiofibular synostosis after ankle fracture. A 14-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1996;78-B:250-252.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Peña FA, Coetzee JC. Ankle syndesmosis injuries. Foot Ankle Clin 2006;11:35-50.

  • 39

    Katznelson A, Lin E, Militiano J. Ruptures of the ligaments about the tibio-fibular syndesmosis. Injury 1983;15:170-172.

  • 40

    Mosier-LaClair S, Pike H, Pomeroy G. Syndesmosis injuries: acute, chronic, new techniques for failed management. Foot Ankle Clin 2002;7:551-565.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

 

EFORT logo

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jul 2022 0 5 4
  • View in gallery

    Drawing showing the ligaments of the lateral side of the ankle. Reproduced with permission.1

  • View in gallery

    ‘Fibular translation’ test. The fibula is translated from anterior to posterior on the tibia. The test is positive when increased anteroposterior movement is felt compared with the opposite ankle.

  • View in gallery

    ‘Cotton’ test. Medial and lateral forces are applied to the talus with the ankle in the neutral position. The test is positive when increased mediolateral movement is felt compared with the opposite ankle.

  • View in gallery

    Radiographic measurements of the ankle in the anteroposterior view at 1 cm above tibial plafond. Depicted tibiofibular clear space (orange arrows) and tibiofibular overlap (blue lines).

  • View in gallery

    Lateral radiograph showing dislocation of the ankle with complete injury of all syndesmotic ligaments and deltoid ligament.

  • View in gallery

    Classification of syndesmotic injuries of the ankle.

  • View in gallery

    Tibiofibular clamp placed before proceeding to screw fixation.

  • View in gallery

    One-third tubular plate with two tri-cortical screws to treat a Maisonneuve fracture, pre- and post-operatively.

  • View in gallery

    Pre- and post-operative radiographs of the procedure mentioned in Figure 8.

  • View in gallery

    Operative photograph showing plantarflexion of the ankle before tensioning the implant.

  • View in gallery

    Operative photograph showing tensioning of the implant.

  • View in gallery

    Anteroposterior radiograph showing an example of plate fixation combined with dynamic suture button.

  • 1

    No authors listed. File:Ankle en.svg. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1981086 (date last accessed 11 September 2017).

  • 2

    van Dijk CN, Longo UG, Loppini M et al.. Classification and diagnosis of acute isolated syndesmotic injuries: ESSKA-AFAS consensus and guidelines. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016;24:1200-1216.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Porter DA, Jaggers RR, Barnes AF, Rund AM. Optimal management of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Open Access J Sports Med 2014;5:173-182.

  • 4

    Quenu E. Du diastasis de l’articulation tibio-peronie’re inferieure. Rev Chir (Paris) 1907;36:62-90. (In French)

  • 5

    Fallat L, Grimm DJ, Saracco JA. Sprained ankle syndrome: prevalence and analysis of 639 acute injuries. J Foot Ankle Surg 1998;37:280-285.

  • 6

    Boytim MJ, Fischer DA, Neumann L. Syndesmotic ankle sprains. Am J Sports Med 1991;19:294-298.

  • 7

    Clanton TO, Paul P. Syndesmosis injuries in athletes. Foot Ankle Clin 2002;7:529-549.

  • 8

    Wright RW, Barile RJ, Surprenant DA, Matava MJ. Ankle syndesmosis sprains in national hockey league players. Am J Sports Med 2004;32:1941-1945.

  • 9

    Del Buono A, Florio A, Boccanera MS, Maffulli N. Syndesmosis injuries of the ankle. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2013;6:313-319.

  • 10

    Nussbaum ED, Hosea TM, Sieler SD, Incremona BR, Kessler DE. Prospective evaluation of syndesmotic ankle sprains without diastasis. Am J Sports Med 2001;29:31-35.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Lin CF, Gross ML, Weinhold P. Ankle syndesmosis injuries: anatomy, biomechanics, mechanism of injury, and clinical guidelines for diagnosis and intervention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006;36:372-384.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Thormeyer JR, Leonard JP, Hutchinson M. Syndesmotic injuries in athletes. In: Zaslav KR, ed. An international perspective on topics in sports medicine and sports injury. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech, 2012:423-456.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Mulligan EP. Evaluation and management of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Phys Ther Sport 2011;12:57-69.

  • 14

    Alonso A, Khoury L, Adams R. Clinical tests for ankle syndesmosis injury: reliability and prediction of return to function. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998;27:276-284.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Press CM, Gupta A, Hutchinson MR. Management of ankle syndesmosis injuries in the athlete. Curr Sports Med Rep 2009;8:228-233.

  • 16

    Takao M, Ochi M, Naito K et al.. Arthroscopic diagnosis of tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption. Arthroscopy 2001;17:836-843.

  • 17

    Oae K, Takao M, Naito K et al.. Injury of the tibiofibular syndesmosis: value of MR imaging for diagnosis. Radiology 2003;227:155-161.

  • 18

    Amendola A, Williams G, Foster D. Evidence-based approach to treatment of acute traumatic syndesmosis (high ankle) sprains. Sports Med Arthrosc 2006;14:232-236.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Hansen M, Le L, Wertheimer S, Meyer E, Haut R. Syndesmosis fixation: analysis of shear stress via axial load on 3.5-mm and 4.5-mm quadricortical syndesmotic screws. J Foot Ankle Surg 2006;45:65-69.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Thompson MC, Gesink DS. Biomechanical comparison of syndesmosis fixation with 3.5- and 4.5-millimeter stainless steel screws. Foot Ankle Int 2000;21:736-741.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Amendola A. Controversies in diagnosis and management of syndesmosis injuries of the ankle. Foot Ankle 1992;13:44-50.

  • 22

    Albers GHR, de Kort AFCC, Middendorf PRJM, van Dijk CN. Distal tibiofibular synostosis after ankle fracture. A 14-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1996;78-B:250-252.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    McBryde A, Chiasson B, Wilhelm A et al.. Syndesmotic screw placement: a biomechanical analysis. Foot Ankle Int 1997;18:262-266.

  • 24

    Scranton PE Jr. Isolated syndesmotic injuries: diastasis of the ankle in the athlete. Tech Foot Ankle Surg 2002;1:88-93.

  • 25

    Wuest TK. Injuries to the distal lower extremity syndesmosis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 1997;5:172-181.

  • 26

    Walley KC, Hofmann KJ, Velasco BT, Kwon JY. Removal of hardware after syndesmotic screw fixation: a systematic literature review. Foot Ankle Spec 2017;10:252-257.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Dingemans SA, Rammelt S, White TO, Goslings JC, Schepers T. Should syndesmotic screws be removed after surgical fixation of unstable ankle fractures? a systematic review. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1497-1504.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Rigby RB, Cottom JM. Does the Arthrex TightRope® provide maintenance of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis? A 2-year follow-up of 64 TightRopes® in 37 patients. J Foot Ankle Surg 2013;52:563-567.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Cottom JM, Hyer CF, Philbin TM, Berlet GC. Treatment of syndesmotic disruptions with the Arthrex Tightrope: a report of 25 cases. Foot Ankle Int 2008;29:773-780.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Thornes B, Shannon F, Guiney AM, Hession P, Masterson E. Suture-button syndesmosis fixation: accelerated rehabilitation and improved outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;431:207-212.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Thornes B, Walsh A, Hislop M, Murray P, O'Brien M. Suture-endobutton fixation of ankle tibio-fibular diastasis: a cadaver study. Foot Ankle Int 2003;24:142-146.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Forsythe K, Freedman KB, Stover MD, Patwardhan AG. Comparison of a novel FiberWire-button construct versus metallic screw fixation in a syndesmotic injury model. Foot Ankle Int 2008;29:49-54.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Rammelt S, Zwipp H, Grass R. Injuries to the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: an evidence-based approach to acute and chronic lesions. Foot Ankle Clin 2008;13:611-633.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Parlamas G, Hannon CP, Murawski CD et al.. Treatment of chronic syndesmotic injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013;21:1931-1939.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    van den Bekerom MP, de Leeuw PA, van Dijk CN. Delayed operative treatment of syndesmotic instability. Current concepts review. Injury 2009;40:1137-1142.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Tornetta P III, Spoo JE, Reynolds FA, Lee C. Overtightening of the ankle syndesmosis: is it really possible? J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2001;83-A:489-492.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Albers GH, de Kort AF, Middendorf PR, van Dijk CN. Distal tibiofibular synostosis after ankle fracture. A 14-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1996;78-B:250-252.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Peña FA, Coetzee JC. Ankle syndesmosis injuries. Foot Ankle Clin 2006;11:35-50.

  • 39

    Katznelson A, Lin E, Militiano J. Ruptures of the ligaments about the tibio-fibular syndesmosis. Injury 1983;15:170-172.

  • 40

    Mosier-LaClair S, Pike H, Pomeroy G. Syndesmosis injuries: acute, chronic, new techniques for failed management. Foot Ankle Clin 2002;7:551-565.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation