Iatrogenic syndesmosis malreduction via clamp and screw placement

High-Ankle Sprain and Syndesmotic Instability: How Far Have We Come with Diagnosis and Treatment?

Probably one of the most controversial subjects in the orthopedic field is the distal tibiofibular articulation. Even though its most primary knowledge can be a matter of enormous debate, it is in the diagnosis and treatment most of the disagreements reign. Distinguishing between injury and instability remains challenging as well as an optimal clinical decision regarding surgical intervention. The last years presented technology and that was able to bring body to an already well-developed scientifical rationale. In this review article, we aim to demonstrate the current data behind syndesmotic instability in the ligament scenario, whereas using few fracture concepts.

A Radiological Study for Assessing Syndesmosis Malreduction: Its Validity and Limitation

This study assessed the diagnostic utility of different X-ray radiological methods on syndesmosis malreduction. Thirteen fresh ankle specimens were used to make a syndesmotic separation model. The specimen was fixed in the anatomic position and in malreduction positions, including internal rotation 10° (IR10°), IR20°, external rotation 10° (ER10°), and ER20°. The tibiofibular clear space (TCS), tibiofibular overlap (TFO) on the anteroposterior view, and anteroposterior ratio (A/P ratio) on the lateral view were measured. When the syndesmosis was fixed in IR20°, the sensitivity of the TCS, TFO, and A/P ratio for malreduction diagnosis was 92.3% (12/13), 69.2% (9/13), and 100%, respectively. When the syndesmosis was fixed in IR10° malreduction, the sensitivity of the TCS, TFO, and A/P ratio for malreduction diagnosis was 38.4% (5/13), 38.4% (5/13), and 84.6% (11/13); in ER10°, 30.7% (4/13), 76.9% (10/13), and 69.2% (9/13); and in ER20°, 92.3% (12/13), 100% and 92.3% (12/13). In the anatomic reduction, the false-positive rate of the TCF, TFO, and A/P ratio was 7.6% (1/13), 7.6% (1/13), and 0%, respectively. The TFO and A/P ratio exhibited differences between all malreduction groups and the anatomic group. However, the TCS measurements had no statistical difference between the anatomic position and IR10° malreduction (p = .109). On the AP view, the TCS and TFO measurements are not sensitive enough to detect the syndesmosis malreduction. The A/P ratio on the lateral view exhibits better diagnostic utility for syndesmosis malreduction.