Translate this page into:
A meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of syndesmotic injury treated with metal screw, dynamic fixation, and bioabsorbable screw
∗Corresponding author: Jiayong Liu. Jiayong.Liu@utoledo.edu
-
Received: ,
Accepted: ,
This article was originally published by Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd. and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.
Abstract
Abstract
Currently there is significant controversy regarding which fixation method is most effective for the treatment of syndesmotic ankle injuries.
This meta-analysis was designed to compare the metal screw, dynamic, and bioabsorbable screw fixation methods for treatment of syndesmotic ankle injuries.
An online search for RCT and prospective/retrospective clinical comparison studies between January 1998 and December 2018 on syndesmotic fixation was conducted. The main parameters collected include functional scores, mean time to full weightbearing, postoperative tibiofibular clear spaces, tibiofibular overlap, medial clear spaces, and complication rates. Statistical analysis was conducted using One Way ANOVAs and Chi-Squared tests using Review Manager and Excel.
A total of 18 comparison studies, with 509 patients in the metal screw fixation group, 275 in the dynamic fixation group, and 226 in the bioabsorbable screw fixation group, were included in this meta-analysis. For the metal screw group, dynamic fixation group, and bioabsorbable screw group, the mean AOFAS score were 83.8, 87.2, and 84.3 (p < 0.05), the mean time to full weightbearing were 9.0 weeks, 7.2 weeks, and 7.7 weeks (p < 0.05), and the complication rates were 0.19, 0.09, and 0.19, respectively (p < 0.05). Similarly, the mean postoperative TFCS were 4.85, 3.87, and 5.70 for the metal screw group, dynamic fixation group, and bioabsorbable screw fixation group, respectively (p < 0.05).
The dynamic fixation group was found to have significantly improved functional scores, lower complication rates, and lower mean time to full weight-bearing than the metal screw and bioabsorbable screw fixation methods.
Meta-analysis of all relevant Level 1–3 Evidence Comparative Studies.
Abstract
Highlights
•There is controversy about what fixation method is most effective for treatment of syndesmotic ankle injuries.•The meta-analysis included 18 comparison studies with 3 groups: metal screw, dynamic fixation, and bioabsorbable screw.•Dynamic fixation has significantly improved functional scores and lowered complication rates compared to other two groups.
Keywords
Syndesmotic ankle injuries
Metal syndesmotic screw
Suture button
TightRope
Bioabsorbable syndesmotic screw
Meta-analysis
1 Introduction
The ankle syndesmosis is comprised of a complex of three ligaments that connect the tibia and fibula: the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament (AITFL), the posterior inferior tibiofibular ligaments (PITFL), and interosseous membrane.1 Syndesmotic ankle fractures occur as a result of excessive dorsiflexion of the foot, causing instability of the ankle mortise. The syndesmotic ankle injury often occurs due to the combined internal rotation of the tibia with external rotation of the talus.2,3
Fractures about the ankle syndesmosis are a highly prevalent injury. It has been reported that 444,909 ankle fractures occurred in the United States in 2015. Given that transsyndesmotic fractures comprise roughly two-thirds of all ankle fractures, it can be estimated that approximately 292,750 syndesmosis injuries occur each year in the United States.4 Currently the three most common fixation methods for treatment of syndesmotic ankle injuries include metal screw fixation, dynamic fixation (which consists of TightRope (Arthrex, Naples) and suture button), and bioabsorbable screw fixation.5 All of these methods have been used in surgical practice and each carries its own advantages and shortcomings. Thornes et al. reported that the dynamic fixation method results in improved outcomes and accelerated rehabilitation compared to the metal screw.6 However, Seyhan et al. stated that the elastic fixation method is functionally equivalent to screw fixation method in the treatment of syndesmotic injuries.7 Additionally, Kocadal et al. found that syndesmotic space may be increased with dynamic fixation.8 Furthermore, Sun et al. stated that the functional recovery between fixation with a metal screw and fixation with a polylevolactic acid (PLLA) bioabsorbable screw (Takiron, Tokyo, Japan) were clinically similar.9 Significant debate regarding the ideal fixation method remains throughout the literature.
To our knowledge, there has been a lack of meta-analyses that compare the outcomes of syndesmotic injuries treated with all three methods of fixation: metal screw, dynamic, and bioabsorbable screw fixation. This meta-analysis was designed to compare the outcomes of these three fixation methods for the treatment of syndesmotic ankle fractures using multiple comparison studies.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Eligibility criteria
Only randomized control trials (RCT) and prospective/retrospective studies comparing metal screw fixation to either dynamic and/or bioabsorbable screw fixation were eligible for inclusion. Studies written in languages other than English were excluded, except for two comparison studies written in Chinese. Included studies were limited to publication dates ranging between January 1998 and December 2018. The studies were screened and selected based on the PRISMA 2009 Statement (see Fig. 1).10 No biomechanical studies were included. Each group outcome measurement included comparisons between time to full weight bearing, functional score, postoperative plain film tibiofibular clear spaces (TFCS), postoperative tibiofibular overlap (TFO), postoperative medial clear spaces (MCS), revisions, and complications. Each study also needed to report the number of patients in each group. Data was extracted and put into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, Seattle) by the senior author. The US Preventive Task Force Quality Rating Criteria was used to select the 18 included studies.11

2.2 Search strategy
PubMed and Google Scholar were used to search for RCTs and prospective/retrospective studies. Search terms such as “metal screw syndesmosis”, “suture button syndesmosis”, and “absorbable screw syndesmosis” were used initially to find a wide variety of studies ranging from biomechanical tests to RCTs. Further in the search process, terms such as “suture button versus metal screw fixation syndesmosis” and “metal screw fixation versus bioabsorbable fixation syndesmosis” were additionally used to narrow search results to studies with sufficient information on different fixation methods. Only clinical RCTs and prospective/retrospective studies that compared metal screw fixation to the dynamic fixation method or the bioabsorbable screw fixation method were kept for the purposes of this meta-analysis. While systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded during the search process, some of the studies in their references were included as well.
2.3 Statistical analysis
For analysis of functional scores, such as AOFAS, Olerud-Molander, and Time to Full Weight Bearing, an ANOVA Single Factor test was used to compare the results from each group. The ANOVA Single Factor test was also used to compare the postoperative TFCSs and TFOs. However, a two-sample t-test with unequal variance was used to compare the postoperative MCSs because none of the included bioabsorbable fixation studies reported postoperative MCS values. For statistics that were percentage based, such as complication rates, revision rates, and Baird scoring system (excellent and good percentages), a Chi-squared test was performed to test if a significant difference existed among the outcomes of the three groups. All statistical analysis was performed in Microsoft Excel.
Data for the forest plots were compiled from various studies and analyzed with RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane, Spokane, WA). For these analyses, several studies were further excluded due to missing statistical metrics such as standard deviation. Due to the methodological variability among the selected articles, a random effects model was employed because of its conservative nature relative to other models.
3 Results
3.1 General information
A total of 18 studies were ultimately included. Twelve studies compared metal screw to dynamic fixation and 6 compared metal screw to bioabsorbable screw fixation. The level of evidence and the year of the study published was recorded (Table 1). There were a total of 509 patients in the metal screw fixation group, 275 in the dynamic fixation group, and 226 in the bioabsorbable screw fixation group. The mean age was 39.7 years for the metal screw fixation group, 41.0 years for the dynamic fixation group, and 43.0 years for the bioabsorbable screw fixation group (Table 1).
| Authors | Year Published | Comparison | Metal Screw (MS)-Patients # | Dynamic Fixation (DF)-Patients # | Bioabsorbable Screw (BS)-Patients # |
| Kocadal et al. 8 | 2016 | MS vs DF | 26 | 26 | |
| Kortekangas et al. 12 | 2015 | MS vs DF | 22 | 21 | |
| Naqvi et al.13 | 2012 | MS vs DF | 23 | 23 | |
| Cottom et al. 14 | 2009 | MS vs DF | 25 | 25 | |
| Coetzee et al. 15 | 2008 | MS vs DF | 12 | 12 | |
| Kim et al. 16 | 2016 | MS vs DF | 24 | 20 | |
| Seyhan et al.7 | 2015 | MS vs DF | 17 | 15 | |
| Andersen et al. 17 | 2018 | MS vs DF | 49 | 48 | |
| Laflamme et al. 18 | 2015 | MS vs DF | 32 | 34 | |
| Thornes et al.6 | 2005 | MS vs DF | 16 | 16 | |
| Maempel et al.19 | 2014 | MS vs DF | 23 | 12 | |
| Li et al.20 | 2017 | MS vs DF | 27 | 23 | |
| Thordarson et al.21 | 2001 | MS vs BS | 17 | 15 | |
| Sun et al.9 | 2014 | MS vs BS | 82 | 86 | |
| Sinisaari et al.22 | 2002 | MS vs BS | 12 | 18 | |
| Kaukonen et al. 23 | 2005 | MS vs BS | 18 | 20 | |
| Noh et al.24 | 2012 | MS vs BS | 53 | 49 | |
| Zhang et al.25 | 2013 | MS vs BS | 31 | 38 | |
| Total: | 509 | 275 | 226 |
Only 7 out of the 18 included studies reported mechanisms of injury; each mechanism of injury was totaled for each fixation group. During the data collection process, injuries due to sports/dance, falling from height, trip/slip and fall from ground level, slipping on ice, traffic accidents, being at home, being at work, being in social environments, and other mechanisms were reported. Between the three fixation groups a total of 132 injuries were due to sports/dance, 58 due to falling from a height, 41 due to tripping/slipping and falling, 8 due to slipping on ice, 127 due to traffic accidents, 4 due to home related activities, 1 due to work related activities, and 16 due to social activities, and 1 due to other mechanisms.
Several methods have been used to classify the syndesmotic ankle injury. The reported fractures were organized into the Fracture Classifications table and put into one of three groups: AO/OTA fracture classification, AO fracture classification, and other additional fracture classifications (Table 2).
| Classification | Metal Screw | Dynamic Fixation | Bioabsorbable Screw | Total |
| AO/OTA 44-B1 | 22 | 0 | 21 | 43 |
| AO/OTA 44-B2 | 26 | 3 | 23 | 52 |
| AO/OTA 44-B3 | 12 | 2 | 16 | 30 |
| AO/OTA 44-C1 | 42 | 24 | 25 | 91 |
| AO/OTA 44-C2 | 26 | 5 | 19 | 50 |
| AO/OTA 44-C3 | 24 | 16 | 8 | 48 |
| Lateral Malleolar | 13 | 14 | N/A | 27 |
| Bimalleolar | 16 | 10 | 12 | 38 |
| Trimalleolar | 9 | 2 | 6 | 17 |
| Weber Type A | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Weber Type B | 10 | 11 | 0 | 21 |
| Weber Type C | 51 | 44 | 0 | 95 |
| Maisonneuve Fracture | 18 | 30 | 0 | 48 |
| Soft Tissue Injury | 7 | 8 | 0 | 15 |
| Lauge-Hansen SER | 6 | 0 | 9 | 15 |
| Lauge-Hansen SER 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| Lauge-Hansen SER 4 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 18 |
| Lauge-Hansen SA 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Lauge-Hansen SA 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Lauge-Hansen PER | 14 | 0 | 17 | 31 |
| Lauge-Hansen PER 4 | 26 | 21 | 0 | 47 |
| Lauge-Hansen PER 3 | 11 | 8 | 0 | 19 |
| Lauge-Hansen PA 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Lauge-Hansen PA 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Lauge-Hansen PA | 11 | 4 | 12 | 27 |
There were 4 studies that used the AO/OTA fracture classification. This classification method contains 6 different types of fractures: 44 B-1, 44-B2, 44-B3, 44-C1, 44-C2, 44-C3. There were a total of 274 fractures in this classification method. There were 43 total 44 B-1 fractures, 52 total 44-B2 fractures, 30 total 44-B3 fractures, 69 total 44-C1 fractures, 39 total 44-C2 fractures, and 41 total 44-C3 fractures.
There were 2 studies that classified ankle injuries into unimalleolar, bimalleolar and trimalleolar fracture groups. There were 27 total lateral malleolar fractures, 26 total bimalleolar fractures, 12 lateral malleolar/bimalleolar fractures, and 17 trimalleolar fractures. The separate classification for lateral malleolar/bimalleolar fractures was done because the study by Sinisaari et al.22 reported the fractures as a combined group rather than reporting the fractures separately.
There were 4 studies that used a Weber classification method. There were a total of 116 Wb fractures found in the studies. There were 21 total Weber Type B fractures and 95 total Weber Type C fractures.
There were 3 studies that used a Maisonneuve Fracture or Soft Tissue Injury classification. There were a total of 63 fractures in this category, with 48 total Maisonneuve fractures, 15 total soft tissue injuries.
There were 5 studies that used the Lauge-Hansen classification method. There were a total of 167 injuries that fell under the Lauge-Hansen classification. These subtypes include: SER, SER 3, SER 4, SA 1, SA 2, PER, PER 4, PER 3, PA 3, PA 2, PA. There were 15 total SER fractures, 4 total SER 3 fractures, 18 total SER 4 fractures, 1 total SA 1 fracture, 1 total SA 2 fracture, 31 total PER fractures, 47 total PER 4 fractures, 19 total PER 3 fractures, 3 total PA 3 fractures, 1 total PA 2 fractures, and 27 total PA fractures.
3.2 Functional and radiological outcomes
Several methods have been used to evaluate the outcomes of patients treated after syndesmotic ankle injury. As shown in Functional Outcomes table (Table 3), the mean functional scores, time to weightbearing, and other outcome measures were reported for each fixation method.
| Fixation Group | Mean AOFAS | Mean Olerud-Molander | Baird Excellent/Good (%) | Mean Time to Full WB (weeks) | Mean Post-OP TFCS (mm) | Mean Post-OP TFO (mm) | Mean Post-OP MCS (mm) |
| Metal Screw | 83.8 | 86.84 | 68 | 8.98 | 4.35 | 7.81 | 3.42 |
| Dynamic Fixation | 87.24 | 88.99 | N/A | 7.2 | 3.87 | 7.53 | 3.29 |
| Bioabsorbable Screw | 84.3 | 82 | 76.2 | 7.65 | 5.7 | 7.8 | N/A |
| p value | p < 0.05 | p < 0.05 | 0.597 | p < 0.05 | p < 0.05 | p < 0.05 | 0.0524 |
3.2.1 AOFAS
Ten total studies used the AOFAS functional scoring system. The mean AOFAS score for the metal screw group was 83.8, for the dynamic group was 87.2, and for the bioabsorbable screw group was 84.3. There was a statistically significant difference between the metal screw, dynamic, and bioabsorbable screw in fixation of the syndesmotic ankle injuries (p < 0.05).
3.2.2 Olerud-Molander
There were a total of three studies that used the Olerud-Molander functional scoring system. The mean Olerud-Molander score for the metal screw group was 86.8, for the dynamic group was 89.0, and for the bioabsorbable screw group was 82.0. There was a statistically significant difference between the outcomes of patients treated with the metal screw, dynamic, and bioabsorbable screw in the fixation of syndesmotic ankle fractures (p < 0.05).
3.2.3 Baird scoring system
Two studies used the Baird functional scoring system. The mean Baird Excellent/Good percentage for the metal screw group was 68.0%, and for the bioabsorbable screw group was 76.2%. There was no statistically significant difference found between the metal screw and bioabsorbable screw fixation in the treatment of the syndesmotic ankle injury (p > 0.05).
3.2.4 Full time to weightbearing
The mean time to full weightbearing for the metal screw group was 9.0 weeks, for the dynamic group it was 7.2 weeks, and for the bioabsorbable group it was 7.7 weeks. There was a statistically significant difference found between the three groups. (p < 0.05).
3.2.5 Clear spaces and overlaps
The mean postoperative TFCS for the metal screw group was 4.35 mm, 3.87 mm for the dynamic fixation group, and 5.70 mm for the bioabsorbable screw fixation group. There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). The mean postoperative TFO for the metal screw group was 7.81 mm, for the dynamic group was 7.53 mm, and for the bioabsorbable screw group was 7.80 mm. Again, there was a statistically significant difference among the three groups (p < 0.05). Finally, the mean postoperative MCS for the metal screw group was 3.42 mm and for the dynamic group was 3.29 mm. No statistically significant difference was found among the two groups (p > 0.05). No MCS data was reported from the bioabsorbable screw fixation group.
3.3 Complications
During the data collection process, the complications that were reported include screw loosening, screw breakage, malreduction, infection, diastasis, syndesmotic ossification, wound complications, and hardware irritation. The complication rate was calculated for each fixation group by dividing the total amount of complications by the total number of patients in each group. For the metal screw fixation group, 94 patients out of 509 patients had a total of 99 complications. For the dynamic fixation group, 18 patients out of 275 patients had a total of 25 complications. For the bioabsorbable fixation group, 41 patients out of 226 patients had a total of 43 complications (Table 4). Patients with syndesmotic ankle injuries treated with a metal (0.19) or bioabsorbable (0.19) screw were found to have a higher complication rate than that of patients treated with the dynamic fixation method (0.09).
| Fixation Method | Rate of Complications | Rate of Patients with Complications | Revision | Diastasis | # of Loose Screws | # of Broken Screws | # of Deep Infections | # of Superficial Infections |
| Metal Screw | 99/509 | 94/509 | 10 | 9 | 18 | 30 | 5 | 8 |
| Dynamic Fixation | 23/275 | 18/275 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Bioabsorbable Screw | 43/226 | 41/226 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 |
| p value | p < 0.05 | p < 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.26 | p < 0.05 | p < 0.05 | 0.289 | 0.425 |
In the forest plot meta-analysis, the suture-button group had a significantly lower risk of post-operative complications compared to the metal screw [RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10–0.35, P < 0.00001; Fig. 2]. The absorbable screw also carries a significantly lower complication rate when compared to metal screw fixation [RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20–0.74, P < 0.004; Fig. 3], although one study by Kaukonen et al.23 found a slightly higher complication rate in the absorbable screw group. Overall, the selected studies demonstrate a significantly higher risk of post-operative complications in the metal screw group compared to suture-button or absorbable screw.


In various studies, revisions were cited due to improper fixation, failed implants, and loss of reduction, among many others. The amount of revisions found in each study were totaled according to each fixation group. There were 10 revisions found in patients treated with the metal screw fixation, 1 revision in patients treated with the dynamic fixation, and 0 revisions found in patients treated with the bioabsorbable fixation. There was no significant difference in the number of revisions among the three fixation methods for syndesmotic ankle injury (p = 0.13).
The tibia-fibula diastasis within each fixation group was collected except for the dynamic fixation group as none of the included studies reported diastasis for dynamic fixation. For the metal screw fixation group, there were 9 cases of reported diastasis. For the bioabsorbable fixation group, there were 2 cases of reported diastasis. There was no statistically significant difference between the number of cases with diastasis in each fixation group (p > 0.05).
The number of loose screws and broken screws were reported and compared between each of the three groups. The metal screw group had 18 loose screws and 30 broken screws total, both of which showed a statistically significant difference (both p < 0.05).
Both deep and superficial infection rates were reported. There were 5, 1, and 4 deep infections in the metal screw, dynamic, and bioabsorbable screw fixation groups, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found (p = 0.289). There were 8, 3, and 1, superficial infections in the metal screw, dynamic and bioabsorbable screw fixation groups, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05).
4 Discussion
Each syndesmotic fixation technique exhibits a unique set of advantages and drawbacks. Metal screw fixation has been the standard method of treatment for syndesmotic ankle fractures for quite a while, despite occasional complications with infection or screw failures. However, it is currently accepted that there are clear disadvantages to the metal screw fixation method. First, the metal screw may require secondary surgery for removal of the screw, increasing the risk of infection and other surgery-associated complications. Secondly, metal screws have a tendency to loosen and break more easily compared to other fixation methods, which may result in increased discomfort either physiologically or psychologically, although Miller et al. reported that the 3 patients who had screw loosening or breakage did not have significantly different functional or pain scores than the other patients without screw loosening or breakage.26 In the study conducted by Cottom et al. that compared metal screw fixation to suture button fixation, 7 out of 25 patients had broken screws and 5 showed signs of malreduction and loosening.14 Other disadvantages of the syndesmotic metal screw fixation method include a slower recovery time, which can lead to prolonged stiffness, a slower healing time, higher risk of infection, and a higher incidence of diastasis.27
In recent literature, the dynamic fixation method has repeatedly demonstrated clear advantages as it avoids many of the pitfalls associated with screw fixation: second surgery, higher risk of infection, diastasis, etc. Dynamic fixation allows for an improved maintenance of reduction, quicker return to weightbearing activities, and avoids the need for hardware removal.27 Of course, this method of fixation does require the insertion of a metal plate to stabilize the distal fibular fracture, which can be associated with some disadvantages. According to Kortekangas et al. who compared metal screw fixation to the dynamic, dynamic fixation is not much more effective than metal screw fixation with regard to syndesmotic reduction. They reported that patients in each fixation group had similar postoperative malreduction rates and that malreduction rates seem to increase in patients with metal screw fixation after 2 years.12
This review found that for the metal screw group, dynamic fixation group, and bioabsorbable screw group, the mean AOFAS score were 83.8, 87.2, and 84.3 (p < 0.05), the mean time to full weightbearing were 9.0 weeks, 7.2 weeks, and 7.7 weeks (p < 0.05), and the complication rates were 0.19, 0.09, and 0.19, respectively (p < 0.05). Similarly, the mean postoperative TFCS were 4.85, 3.87, and 5.70 for the metal screw group, dynamic fixation group, and bioabsorbable screw fixation group, respectively (p < 0.05).
The bioabsorbable screw is another method of syndesmotic fixation which has become increasingly prevalent. There are few comparison studies with the bioabsorbable screw, but the available literature demonstrates promising clinical results. One clear advantage of the bioabsorbable screw is the avoidance of screw removal, which can be taxing on patients. However, Schnetzke et al. found that there are more complications in patients with bioabsorbable screws than in patients with metal screws, especially in regard to wound infection. They found that 23.4% of patients who underwent bioabsorbable screw fixation experienced some sort of complication.3
There are several limitations in this meta-analysis. First of all, the comparison outcomes of the studies included in this meta-analysis failed to report the invasive severity for each of the treatment regimens. This is a critical factor for patient outcomes after fixation.
In addition, the number of patients in the dynamic or bioabsorbable screw fixation groups was far fewer than the number of patients with metal screw fixation. Although this was anticipated given that the metal screw has been the traditional method of fixation, this is an inherent limitation in our study. Another limitation in this study was the low number of quality RCT and prospective/retrospective comparison studies published in the last 20 years. Furthermore, in the analysis of syndesmotic clear space reduction, forest plot assessment was unable to be performed due to only two of the included studies reporting standard deviation values. Finally, this study only addressed the role of surgical fixation methods in treating syndesmotic ankle fractures. However, another critical factor in treatment is the method of reduction performed prior to fixation. Most of the studies included in this meta-analysis did not report reduction methods, which is why reduction methods were not addressed.
In conclusion, the dynamic fixation group was found to have significantly improved functional scores, lower complication rates, and lower mean time to full weight-bearing than the metal screw and bioabsorbable screw fixation methods.
References
- 2016:1418-1428.
- [Google Scholar]
- Optimal management of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Open Access J Sports Med. 2014;5:173-182.
- [Google Scholar]
- Management of syndesmotic injuries: what is the evidence? World J Orthoped. 2016;7(11):718-725.
- [Google Scholar]
- Evaluation and management of injuries of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Br Med Bull. 2014;111(1):101-115.
- [Google Scholar]
- Suture-button syndesmosis fixation: accelerated rehabilitation and improved outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;431:207-212.
- [Google Scholar]
- Comparison of screw fixation with elastic fixation methods in the treatment of syndesmosis injuries in ankle fractures. Injury. 2015;46(Suppl 2):S19-S23.
- [Google Scholar]
- Evaluation of reduction accuracy of suture-button and ScrewFixation techniques for syndesmotic injuries. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(12):1317-1325.
- [Google Scholar]
- A prospective, randomised trial comparing the use of absorbable and metallic screws in the fixation of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries: mid-term follow-up. Bone Joint Lett J. 2014;96-B(4):548-554.
- [Google Scholar]
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7)
- [Google Scholar]
- Screening for Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Adults: An Updated Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2019
- [Google Scholar]
- A prospective randomised study comparing TightRope and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy and maintenance of syndesmotic reduction assessed with bilateral computed tomography. Injury. 2015;46(6):1119-1126.
- [Google Scholar]
- Fixation of ankle syndesmotic injuries: comparison of tightrope fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy of syndesmotic reduction. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(12):2828-2835.
- [Google Scholar]
- Transosseous fixation of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: comparison of an interosseous suture and endobutton to traditional screw fixation in 50 cases. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2009;48(6):620-630.
- [Google Scholar]
- Treatment of syndesmosis disruptions with TightRope fixation. Tech Foot Ankle Surg. 2008;7(3):196-202.
- [Google Scholar]
- A comparison of screw fixation and suture-button fixation in a syndesmosis injury in an ankle fracture. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;55(5):985-990.
- [Google Scholar]
- Randomized trial comparing suture button with Single syndesmotic screw for syndesmosis injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(1):2-12.
- [Google Scholar]
- A prospective randomized multicenter trial comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated surgically with a static or dynamic implant for acute ankle syndesmosis rupture. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(5):216-223.
- [Google Scholar]
- Use of tightrope fixation in ankle syndesmotic injuries. Chin J Traumatol. 2014;17(1):8-11.
- [Google Scholar]
- [Effectiveness comparison of flexible fixation and rigid fixation in treatment of ankle pronation-external rotation fractures with distal tibiofibular syndesmosis] Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2017 Jul 15;31(7):820-824.
- [Google Scholar]
- Bioabsorbable versus stainless steel screw fixation of the syndesmosis in pronation-lateral rotation ankle fractures: a prospective randomized trial. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(4):335-338.
- [Google Scholar]
- Ruptured tibio-fibular syndesmosis: comparison study of metallic to bioabsorbable fixation. Foot Ankle Int. 2002 Aug;23(8):744-748.
- [Google Scholar]
- Fixation of syndesmotic ruptures in 38 patients with a malleolar fracture: a randomized study comparing a metallic and a bioabsorbable screw. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(6):392-395.
- [Google Scholar]
- Outcomes of operative treatment of unstable ankle fractures: a comparison of metallic and biodegradable implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(22):e166.
- [Google Scholar]
- [Effectiveness comparison between absorbable and metallic screws for treatment of tibiofibular syndesmotic disruptions] Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2013;27(12):1442-1445.
- [Google Scholar]
- Functional outcomes after syndesmotic screw fixation and removal. J Orthop Trauma. 2010 Jan;24(1):12-16.
- [Google Scholar]
- Distal tibiofibular syndesmosis dysfunction: a systematic literature review of dynamic versus static fixation over the last 10 years. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019 Mar;58(2):320-327.
- [Google Scholar]

