Dataset Information

Biomechanics of the Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmosis: A Systematic Review of Cadaveric Studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This investigation's purpose was to perform a systematic review of the literature examining the biomechanics of the ligaments comprising the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis with specific attention to their resistance to translational and rotational forces. Although current syndesmosis repair techniques can achieve an anatomic reduction, they may not reapproximate native ankle biomechanics, resulting in loss of reduction, joint overconstraint, or lack of external rotation resistance. Armed with a contemporary understanding of individual ligament biomechanics, future operative strategies can target key stabilizing structure(s), translating to a repair better equipped to resist anatomic displacing forces.

Study design

Systematic review.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist. Biomechanical studies testing cadaveric lower limb specimens in the intact and injured state measuring the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis resistance to translational and rotational forces were included in this review. Only studies that included numerical data were included in this review; studies that only reported figures and graphs were excluded.

Results

Twelve studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two studies determined the mechanical properties of syndesmotic ligaments, finding superior strength and stiffness of the interosseous ligament (IOL), as compared to the anterior (AITFL) or posteroinferior tibiofibular ligament (PITFL). Four studies examined native ankle biomechanics establishing physiologic range of motion of the fibula relative to the tibia. Fibular range of motion was found to be up to 2.53 mm of posterior translation (Markolf et al), 1.00 mm lateral translation (Xenos et al), 3.6 degrees of external rotation (Burssens et al), and 1.4 degrees of internal rotation (Clanton et al). Four studies evaluated syndesmotic biomechanics under physiological loading and found that the AITFL, IOL, and PITFL provide the majority of resistance to external rotation, diastasis, and internal rotation, respectively. Two studies investigated the biomechanics of clinically and intraoperatively used tests for syndesmotic injuries and found increased sensitivity of sagittal plane posterior fibular translation, as opposed to coronal plane lateral fibular translation for unstable injuries.

Conclusions

Study findings suggest that although the IOL is the strongest syndesmotic ligament, the AITFL has a dominant role stabilizing the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis to external rotation force. Because of these characteristics, operative repair of the AITFL along its native vector may provide a more biomechanically advantageous construct and should be investigated clinically. Additionally, evaluation of clinical stress tests revealed that the external rotation stress test is the most sensitive test to recognize an AITFL tear, and that a 3-ligament disruption is needed to cause diastasis greater than 2 mm.

SUBMITTER: Khambete P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8702939 | 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:BackgroundStabilization methods for distal tibiofibular syndesmotic injuries present risk of malreduction. We compared reduction accuracy and biomechanical properties of a new syndesmotic reduction and stabilization technique using 2 suture buttons placed through a sagittal tunnel in the fibula and across the tibia just proximal to the incisura with those of the conventional method.MethodsSyndesmotic injury was created in 18 fresh-frozen cadaveric lower leg specimens. Nine ankles were repaired with the conventional method and 9 with the new technique. Reduction for the conventional method was performed using thumb pressure under direct visualization and for the new method by tightening both suture buttons passed through the fibular and tibial tunnels. Computed tomography was used to assess reduction accuracy. Torsional resistance, fibular rotation, and fibular translation were evaluated during biomechanical testing.ResultsThe new technique showed less lateral translation of the fibula on CT measurements after reduction (0.06 ± 0.06 mm) than the conventional method (0.26 ± 0.31 mm), P = .02. The new technique produced less fibular rotation during internal rotation after 0 cycles (new -2.4 ± 1.4 degrees; conventional -5.0 ± 1.2 degrees, P = .001), 100 cycles (new -2.1 ± 1.9 degrees; conventional -4.6 ± 1.4 degrees, P = .01), and 500 cycles (new -2.2 ± 1.6 degrees; conventional -5.3 ± 2.5 degrees, P = .01) and during external rotation after 100 cycles (new 3.9 ± 3.3 degrees; conventional 5.9 ± 3.5 degrees, P = .02) and 500 cycles (new 3.3 ± 3.2 degrees; conventional 6.3 ± 2.6 degrees, P = .03). Fixation failed in 3 specimens.ConclusionThe new syndesmotic reduction and fixation technique resulted in more accurate reduction of the fibula in the tibial incisura in the coronal plane and better rotational stability compared with the conventional method.Clinical relevanceThis new technique of syndesmosis reduction and stabilization may be a reliable alternative to current methods.

Project description:ObjectiveThe optimal MRI scan planes of collateral ligaments of the ankle have been described extensively, with the exception of the syndesmotic ligaments. We assessed the optimal scan plane for depicting the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis.Materials and methodsIn order to determine the optimal oblique caudal-cranial and lateral-medial MRI scan plane, two fresh frozen cadaveric ankles were used. The angle of the scan plane that demonstrated the anterior and posterior distal tibiofibular ligament uninterrupted in their full length was determined. In a prospective study this oblique scan plane was then used in addition to the axial and coronal planes, for MRI scans of both ankles in 21 healthy volunteers. Two observers independently evaluated the anterior tibiofibular ligament (ATIFL) and posterior tibiofibular ligament (PTIFL) regarding the continuity of the individual fascicles, thickness and wavy contour of the ligaments in both the axial and the oblique plane. Kappa was calculated to determine the interobserver agreement. McNemar's test was used to statistically quantify the significance of the two scan planes.ResultsIn the axial plane the ATIFL was in 31% (13/42) partly and in 69% (29/42) completely discontinuous; in the oblique plane the ATIFL was continuous in 88% (37/42) and partly discontinuous in 12% (5/42). Compared with the axial plane, the oblique plane demonstrated significantly less discontinuity (p<0.001), but not significantly less thickening (p=1.00) or less wavy contour (p=0.06) of the ATIFL. In the axial scan plane the PTIFL was continuous in 76% (32/42), partially discontinuous in 19% (8/42) and completely discontinuous in 5% (2/42); in the oblique plane the PTIFL was continuous in 100% (42/42). Compared with the axial plane, the oblique plane demonstrated significantly less discontinuity (p=0.002), but not significantly less thickening (p=1.00) or less wavy contour (p=0.50) of the PTIFL. The interobserver agreement score and kappa (?) regarding the continuity for the ATIFL in the axial and oblique planes was 91% (?=0.79) and 91% (?=0.55) respectively; for the PTIFL it was 86% (?=0.65) and 100% (? = not defined).ConclusionThe ATIFL and PTIFL are routinuely scanned in the orthogonal planes. The advantage of MRI scanning in an oblique image plane of about 45 degrees permits a better evaluation of the ligaments compared with the axial plane, particularly a better interpretation of ligament continuity, thickening and wavy contour. This may lead to a reduction in false-positive results, especially regarding partial or complete ligament ruptures. This can be of considerable aid in therapeutic management.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis by synthesizing multiple literature sources to explore whether there are any differences between elastic fixation and rigid fixation in the treatment of acute tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries. The aim was to provide effective guidance for clinical treatment.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search across seven databases, including both Chinese and English, to include all studies related to the treatment of acute tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries with elastic fixation and rigid fixation published between January 1, 2013, and November 15, 2022. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we rigorously screened, assessed, and extracted data from the included studies. The outcome measures included AOFAS scores at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively; tibiofibular clear space (TBCS) and tibiofibular overlap distance (TBOL) at the early postoperative and 12-month follow-up; intraoperative blood loss; operative time; time to full weight-bearing postoperatively; and postoperative complications. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.ResultsA total of 35 studies were included, comprising 16 randomized controlled trials and 19 retrospective cohort studies. The study population included 2120 cases, with 1044 cases in the elastic fixation group and 1076 cases in the rigid fixation group. The elastic fixation group had higher AOFAS scores at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively compared to the rigid fixation group. Although the elastic fixation group had a slightly larger TBCS than the rigid fixation group in the early postoperative period, the difference between the two groups became statistically insignificant at 12 months postoperatively. There was no statistically significant difference in TBOL between the two groups in the early postoperative period, but at 12 months, the elastic fixation group had a greater TBOL than the rigid fixation group. Additionally, the elastic fixation group had lower rates of postoperative local irritation, wound infection, and postoperative internal fixation loosening or rupture compared to the rigid fixation group. The rate of postoperative tibiofibular redislocation did not differ statistically between the two groups. The time to full weight-bearing was shorter in the elastic fixation group than in the rigid fixation group. Although the elastic fixation group had a slightly longer operative time, there was no statistically significant difference in intraoperative blood loss between the two groups.ConclusionCompared to rigid fixation, elastic fixation in the treatment of acute tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries offers several advantages, including better postoperative ankle joint function recovery, more precise anatomical reduction of the syndesmosis postoperatively, a lower incidence of postoperative complications, and shorter time to full weight-bearing postoperatively. These findings provide robust guidance for clinical treatment.

Project description:PURPOSE:To systematically review available literature comparing location and safety of 2 common anteromedial portals with nearby neurovascular structures in cadaveric models and to determine the correct positioning and preparation of the joint before elbow arthroscopy. METHODS:The review was devised in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of original, cadaveric studies performed by experienced surgeons on male or female elbows evaluating anteromedial portal placement with regard to proximity of the arthroscope to neurovascular structures. Exclusion criteria consisted of case reports, clinical series, non-English language studies, and noncadaveric studies. Statistical analysis was done to measure reviewer reliability after scoring of each study. RESULTS:During screening, 2,596 studies were identified, and 10 studies met final inclusion as original, cadaveric investigations of anteromedial portal proximity to neurovascular structures. The difference in distance between proximal and distal portals was <1 mm for the brachial artery and <1.5 mm for the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve, whereas the ulnar nerve was 4.17 mm further from the distal portal and the median nerve was 5.07 mm further from the proximal portal. Joint distension increased the distances of neurovascular structures to portal sites, with the exception of the ulnar nerve in distal portals. Elbow flexion to 90° increased distances of all neurovascular structures to portal sites. CONCLUSION:The results show that the proximal anteromedial portal puts fewer structures at risk compared with the distal portal. Elbows in 90° flexion with joint distension carry a lower risk for neurovascular injury during portal placement. These findings suggest the proximal anteromedial portal to be the safer technique in anteromedial arthroscopy of the elbow. CLINICAL RELEVANCE:Discrepancies in placement of portals have existed in the literature, indicating differing safety margins regarding surrounding neurovascular anatomy. The present study aims to link together the literature-based evidence to describe the safest anteromedial portal variation.