Comparative Study for Surgical Treatment of Acute Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmotic Lesions Using the Modified Suture-Button Fixation Versus Static Syndesmotic Screw Fixation.

Mohamed Jlidi, Walid Bouaicha, Siwar Sbaihi, Hedi Gharbi, Mouldi Lamouchi, Karim Mallek, Salma Jaziri, Selim Daas
{"title":"Comparative Study for Surgical Treatment of Acute Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmotic Lesions Using the Modified Suture-Button Fixation Versus Static Syndesmotic Screw Fixation.","authors":"Mohamed Jlidi, Walid Bouaicha, Siwar Sbaihi, Hedi Gharbi, Mouldi Lamouchi, Karim Mallek, Salma Jaziri, Selim Daas","doi":"10.1177/19386400241256440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Several techniques to treat acute distal tibiofibular instability are described consisting in static and dynamic fixation procedures. The aim of our work is to compare the outcomes of acute syndesmotic injury fixation between the modified technique of dynamic fixation using the suture-button principle as an efficient and low-cost method and the classic static fixation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>It is a prospective study including patients presenting with acute syndesmotic injury. After fracture fixation, residual syndesmotic instability was managed using syndesmotic screw in group A and dynamic fixation with a double Ethibond suture in group B. Functional results were assessed using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score (AOFAS) score. Radiological evaluation was done by a postoperative computed tomography (CT) scan of both ankles and plain X-rays of the ankle after surgery and at 18 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group A included 20 patients meanwhile 35 patients were in group B. The reduction was satisfactory in the 2 groups according to the postoperative CT scan measurements. The mean healing time in group A was 49.65 days and 51.49 days in group B (P = .45). We did not find any significant difference in terms of loss of reduction in the 2 groups. The return to work was faster in group B (P = .04). Patients in group B had better AOFAS score (P = .03) and ankle range of motion than those in group A. The difference was statistically significant (P = .02 for dorsal flexion and P = .001 for plantar flexion). For group A, we did not note any early complications. Meanwhile, 7 patients developed skin complications in group B (P = .03). However, no significant difference was found in terms of late complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The modified dynamic suture-button fixation remains a therapeutic alternative in low-income countries that could achieve better outcomes than static fixation, with easy postoperative follow-up.</p><p><strong>Levels of evidence: </strong><i>Level II</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":73046,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle specialist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","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/10.1177/19386400241256440","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

Introduction: Several techniques to treat acute distal tibiofibular instability are described consisting in static and dynamic fixation procedures. The aim of our work is to compare the outcomes of acute syndesmotic injury fixation between the modified technique of dynamic fixation using the suture-button principle as an efficient and low-cost method and the classic static fixation.

Methods: It is a prospective study including patients presenting with acute syndesmotic injury. After fracture fixation, residual syndesmotic instability was managed using syndesmotic screw in group A and dynamic fixation with a double Ethibond suture in group B. Functional results were assessed using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score (AOFAS) score. Radiological evaluation was done by a postoperative computed tomography (CT) scan of both ankles and plain X-rays of the ankle after surgery and at 18 months.

Results: Group A included 20 patients meanwhile 35 patients were in group B. The reduction was satisfactory in the 2 groups according to the postoperative CT scan measurements. The mean healing time in group A was 49.65 days and 51.49 days in group B (P = .45). We did not find any significant difference in terms of loss of reduction in the 2 groups. The return to work was faster in group B (P = .04). Patients in group B had better AOFAS score (P = .03) and ankle range of motion than those in group A. The difference was statistically significant (P = .02 for dorsal flexion and P = .001 for plantar flexion). For group A, we did not note any early complications. Meanwhile, 7 patients developed skin complications in group B (P = .03). However, no significant difference was found in terms of late complications.

Conclusions: The modified dynamic suture-button fixation remains a therapeutic alternative in low-income countries that could achieve better outcomes than static fixation, with easy postoperative follow-up.

Levels of evidence: Level II.

使用改良缝合扣固定与静态胫腓骨联合螺钉固定对急性胫腓骨远端联合损伤进行手术治疗的比较研究。
介绍:治疗急性胫腓骨远端失稳的几种技术包括静态和动态固定程序。我们的研究旨在比较使用缝合扣原理的改良动态固定技术(一种高效、低成本的方法)和经典静态固定技术对急性胫腓骨联合损伤的固定效果:这是一项前瞻性研究,研究对象包括急性巩膜损伤患者。方法:这是一项前瞻性研究,包括急性巩膜损伤患者。骨折固定后,A 组使用巩膜螺钉处理残余巩膜不稳,B 组使用双 Ethibond 缝线进行动态固定。功能结果采用美国骨科足踝协会评分(AOFAS)进行评估。放射学评估通过术后双踝计算机断层扫描(CT)和术后及术后18个月的踝关节X光平片进行:根据术后 CT 扫描的测量结果,两组患者的踝关节均有满意的缩小。A 组的平均愈合时间为 49.65 天,B 组为 51.49 天(P = .45)。我们没有发现两组在缩小程度方面有明显差异。B 组患者重返工作岗位的速度更快(P = .04)。B 组患者的 AOFAS 评分(P = 0.03)和踝关节活动范围均优于 A 组患者。在 A 组中,我们没有发现任何早期并发症。与此同时,B 组有 7 名患者出现了皮肤并发症(P = .03)。结论:改良的动态缝合-钮扣法是一种新的治疗方法:结论:在低收入国家,改良的动态缝合扣固定术仍是一种治疗选择,与静态固定术相比,它能取得更好的疗效,术后随访也很方便:证据等级:二级。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信