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.

关节联合螺钉固定、缝合按钮与胫距跟骨钉治疗踝关节联合骨折:荟萃分析。
背景:踝关节联合骨折发生于复合联合损伤合并踝部骨折。这会导致严重的疼痛、虚弱和不稳定。手术干预包括关节联合螺钉固定(SS)、缝合扣固定(SB)和胫距跟骨钉固定(TTC)。本荟萃分析旨在比较这些治疗踝关节联合骨折的方法的结果。方法:在PubMed和Embase上进行文献检索,比较研究包括至少2种手术干预和至少一种相关功能结局和/或并发症指标,直到2024年6月。Olerud-Molander踝关节评分(OMAS)用于比较功能结果,这是一种自我报告的结果测量方法,用于评估踝关节骨折患者的症状和功能,而感染和再手术则用于比较并发症的结果。使用Review Manager 5.4进行统计分析。p值≤0.05认为有统计学意义。使用Review Manager 5.4评估偏倚风险。以及纽卡斯尔-渥太华的规模。结果:本研究共纳入18项研究,共纳入1040例患者。与TTC相比,SS的2年随访率明显更高。TTC的感染率明显低于SS, SB的1年和2年随访发生率均明显高于SS, SB的再手术率明显低于SS, SB的1年和2年随访发生率均明显高于TTC。与TTC相比,SB的感染率明显降低。结论:SB是踝关节联合骨折的首选治疗方法,而TTC是一种可行的替代治疗方法。与TTC和ss相比,SB被推荐作为踝关节联合骨折患者的主要手术干预措施。
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