Dataset Information

Comparison of Outcomes Between Suture Button Technique and Screw Fixation Technique in Patients With Acute Syndesmotic Diastasis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Our aim was to compare the outcome between suture button (SB) stabilization and syndesmotic screw fixation (SF) in patients with acute syndesmotic diastasis.

Methods

A systematic literature search up to June 30, 2021, was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of SB with SF techniques in patients with acute syndesmotic diastasis. We calculated mean differences for continuous outcomes, using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method, and odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes, using the Mantel-Haenszel method.

Results

Eight RCTs involving 569 patients met the inclusion criteria, 1 RCT with level I evidence, and 7 RCTs with level II evidence. The meta-analysis showed that the SB technique had a higher AOFAS score <6 months and 12 months postoperatively (MD = 4.74, 95% CI 1.68-7.80, P = .01; and MD = 5.42, 95% CI 1.50-9.33, P = .02) and reduced the risk of implant irritation (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.89, P = .03), implant failure (OR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.02-0.23, P < .01), and reoperation (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.22-0.83, P = .01). The 2 approaches did not differ in further functional outcomes or postoperative complications.

Conclusion

Because functional outcomes showed no relevant difference between both SB and SF, the advantage of SB appears to be in the lower risk for postoperative complications. The SB technique led to fewer cases of implant irritation, implant failure, and reoperation compared with SF.

Level of evidence

Level I, meta-analysis of RCTs.

SUBMITTER: Ramadanov N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8669888 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeRecently, a new suture-button fixation device has emerged for the treatment of acute distal tibiofibular syndesmotic injuries and its use is rapidly increasing. The current systematic review was undertaken to compare the biomechanical properties, functional outcome, need for implant removal, and the complication rate of syndesmotic disruptions treated with a suture-button device with the current 'gold standard', i.e. the syndesmotic screw.MethodA literature search in the electronic databases of the Cochrane Library, EMbase, Pubmed Medline, and Google Scholar, between January 1st 2000 to December 1st 2011, was conducted to identify studies in which unstable ankle fractures with concomitant distal tibiofibular syndesmotic injury were treated with either a syndesmotic screw or a suture-button device.ResultsA total of six biomechanical studies, seven clinical full-text studies and four abstracts on the TightRope system, and 27 studies on syndesmotic screw or bolt fixation were identified. The AOFAS of 133 patients treated with TightRope was 89.1 points, with an average study follow-up of 19 months. The AOFAS score in studies with 253 patients treated with syndesmotic screws (metallic and absorbable) or bolts was 86.3 points, with an average study follow-up of 42 months. Two studies reported an earlier return to work in the TightRope group. Implant removal was reported in 22 (10%) of 220 patients treated with a TightRope (range, 0-25%), in the screw or bolt group the average was 51.9% of 866 patients (range, 5.8-100%).ConclusionThe TightRope system has a similar outcome compared with the syndesmotic screw or bolt fixation, but might lead to a quicker return to work. The rate of implant removal is lower than in the syndesmotic screw group. There is currently insufficient evidence on the long-term effects of the TightRope and more uniform outcome reporting is desirable. In addition, there is a need for studies on cost-effectiveness of the treatment of acute distal tibiofibular syndesmotic disruption treated with a suture-button device.

Project description:Background and purpose - Better outcomes are reported for suture button (SB) compared with syndesmotic screws (SS) in patients treated for an acute ankle syndesmotic injury. One reason could be that screws are more rigid than an SB. A single tricortical 3.5 mm syndesmotic screw (TS) is the most dynamic screw option. Our hypothesis is that 1 SB and 1 TS provide similar results. Therefore, in randomized controlled trial, we compared the results between SB and TS for syndesmotic stabilization in patients with acute syndesmosis injury. Patients and methods - 113 patients with acute syndesmotic injury were randomized to SB (n = 55) or TS (n = 58). The American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), Olerud-Molander Ankle score (OMA), visual analogue scale (VAS), EuroQol- 5D (EQ-5D), radiologic results, range of motion, complications, and reoperations (no implants were routinely removed). CT scans of both ankles were obtained after surgery, and after 1 and 2 years. Results - The 2-year follow-up rate was 84%. At 2 years, median AOFAS score was 97 in both groups (IQR SB 87-100, IQR TS 90-100, p = 0.7), median MOXFQ index was 5 in the SB group and 3 in the TS group (IQR 0-18 vs. 0-8, p = 0.2), and median OMA score was 90 in the SB group and 100 in the TS group (IQR 75-100 vs. 83-100, p = 0.2). The syndesmotic reduction was similar 2 years after surgery; 19/55 patients in the SB group and 13/58 in the TS group had a difference in anterior syndesmotic width ≥ 2 mm (p = 0.3). 0 patients in the SB group and 5 patients in the TS group had complete tibiofibular synostosis (p = 0.03). At 2 years, 10 TS were broken. Complications and reoperations were similar between the groups. Interpretation - We found no clinically relevant differences regarding outcome scores between the groups. TS is an inexpensive alternative to SB.