Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sagittal ankle position does not affect axial CT measurements of the syndesmosis in a cadaveric model

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of ankle plantarflexion and the axial location of measurement on quantitative syndesmosis assessment.

Methods

Twelve fresh–frozen cadaveric specimens were secured in three positions of ankle plantarflexion (0°, 15°, and 30°) using an ankle-spanning external fixator and underwent CT scans at each position. Syndesmotic measurements were obtained on axial images using three previously described methods (six measurements) at the level of the tibial plafond and 1 cm proximal to the plafond. Method 1 evaluated the distance between the most anterior and posterior aspects of the fibula and tibia. Method 2 measured medial–lateral diastasis of the anterior and posterior aspects of the fibula, and fibular anterior–posterior translation. Method 3 evaluated axial rotation of the fibula. All measurements were performed by two independent observers. Inter-rater reliability of each measurement was evaluated using intra-class coefficients. Repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) was performed to evaluate within-specimen differences in measurements obtained at varying ankle positions.

Results

The anterior incisura component of method 1 demonstrated poor-to-moderate inter-rater reliability across all ankle positions and at both measurement locations. Inter-rater reliability was highest for method 2, especially when measured 1 cm proximal to the plafond. Method 3 demonstrated moderate reliability 1 cm proximal to the plafond. After correcting for multiple comparisons, RM-ANOVA and pairwise analysis revealed that none of the measurements changed significantly with varying ankle position.

Conclusion

The inter-rater reliability of the most common method of syndesmotic evaluation (method 1) was found to be lower than in previous studies. The most reliable syndesmotic evaluation can be made by measuring diastasis and anteroposterior translation 1 cm proximal to the plafond (method 2). Ankle position from 0° to 30° of plantarflexion did not change the measurements obtained.

Level of evidence

IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tornetta P, Axelrad TW, Sibai TA et al (2012) Treatment of the Stress positive ligamentous SE4 ankle fracture. J Orthop Trauma. 26:659–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stark E, Tornetta P, Creevy WR (2007) Syndesmotic Instability in weber B Ankle fractures: a clinical evaluation. J Orthop Trauma. 21:643–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Birnie MFN, van Schilt KLJ, Sanders FRK et al (2019) Anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament avulsion fractures in operatively treated ankle fractures: a retrospective analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 139(6):787–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03138-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Little MM, Berkes MB, Schottel PC et al (2015) Anatomic Fixation of supination external rotation type IV Equivalent ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 29:250–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Miller AN, Carroll EA, Parker RJ et al (2010) Posterior malleolar stabilization of syndesmotic injuries is equivalent to screw fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 468:1129–1135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Weening B, Bhandari M (2005) Predictors of Functional outcome following transsyndesmotic screw fixation of ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 19:102–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Andersen MR, Frihagen F, Hellund JC et al (2018) Randomized Trial comparing suture button with single syndesmotic screw for syndesmosis injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 100:2–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Levack AE, Warner SJ, Gausden EB et al (2018) Comparing Functional outcomes after injury-specific fixation of posterior malleolar fractures and equivalent ligamentous injuries in rotational ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 32:e123–e128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gardner MJ, Demetrakopoulos D, Briggs SM et al (2006) Malreduction of the Tibiofibular syndesmosis in ankle fractures. Foot Ankle Int 27:788–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Burns WC, Prakash K, Adelaar R et al (1993) Tibiotalar Joint dynamics: indications for the syndesmotic screws—A cadaver study. Foot Ankle. 14:153–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hunt KJ, Goeb Y, Behn AW et al (2015) Ankle Joint contact loads and displacement with progressive syndesmotic injury. Foot Ankle Int 36:1095–1103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Thordarson DB, Motamed S, Hedman T et al (1997) The Effect of fibular malreduction on contact pressures in an ankle fracture malunion model*. J Bone Joint Surg 79:1809–1815

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chissell HR, Jones J (1995) The influence of a diastasis screw on the outcome of Weber type-C ankle fractures. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery British volume. 77-B:435–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Naqvi GA, Cunningham P, Lynch B et al (2012) Fixation of Ankle syndesmotic injuries: comparison of tightrope fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy of syndesmotic reduction. Am J Sports Med. 40:2828–2835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sagi HC, Shah AR, Sanders RW (2012) The Functional consequence of syndesmotic joint malreduction at a minimum 2-Year follow-up. J Orthop Trauma. 26:439–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Egol KA, Pahk B, Walsh M et al (2010) Outcome after Unstable ankle fracture: effect of syndesmotic stabilization. J Orthop Trauma. 24:7–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bauer M, Jonsson K, Nilsson B (1985) 33 follow-up of ankle fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 56:103–106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Tunturi T, Kemppainen K, Pätiälä H et al (1983) Importance of Anatomical reduction for subjective recovery after ankle fracture. Acta Orthop Scand. 54:641–647

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kennedy JG, Soffe KE, Vedova PD et al (2000) Evaluation of the Syndesmotic screw in low weber C Ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 14:359–366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wikeroy AK, Hoiness PR, Andreassen GS et al (2010) No difference in functional and radiographic results 8.4 years after quadricortical compared with tricortical syndesmosis fixation in ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 24:17–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Harper MC (1993) An Anatomic and radiographic investigation of the tibiofibular clear space. Foot Ankle. 14:455–458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Elgafy H, Semaan HB, Blessinger B et al (2010) Computed tomography of normal distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Skeletal Radiol. 39:559–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Marmor M, Hansen E, Han HK et al (2011) Limitations of Standard fluoroscopy in detecting rotational malreduction of the syndesmosis in an Ankle fracture model. Foot Ankle Int 32:616–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ebraheim NA, Lu J, Yang H et al (1997) Radiographic and CT evaluation of Tibiofibular Syndesmotic Diastasis: a cadaver study. Foot Ankle Int 18:693–698

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Taser F, Shafiq Q, Ebraheim NA (2006) Three-dimensional volume rendering of tibiofibular joint space and quantitative analysis of change in volume due to tibiofibular syndesmosis diastases. Skeletal Radiol. 35:935–941

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mukhopadhyay S, Metcalfe A, Guha AR et al (2011) Malreduction of syndesmosis—are we considering the anatomical variation? Injury 42:1073–1076

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Shah AS, Kadakia AR, Tan GJ et al (2012) Radiographic Evaluation of the normal distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int 33:870–876

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Davidovitch RI, Weil Y, Karia R et al (2013) Intraoperative syndesmotic reduction: three-dimensional versus standard fluoroscopic imaging. J Bone Joint Surg 95:1838–1843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Warner SJ, Fabricant PD, Garner MR et al (2015) The Measurement and clinical importance of syndesmotic reduction after operative fixation of rotational ankle fractures: The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume. 97:1935–1944

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Anand Prakash A (2018) Syndesmotic stability: is there a radiological normal?—A systematic review. Foot Ankle Surg 24(3):174–184

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Amin A, Janney C, Sheu C, Jupiter DC, Panchbhavi VK (2018) Weight-bearing radiographic analysis of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Spec. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938640018766631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nault M, Leduc S (2013) CT Scan Assessment of the syndesmosis: a new reproducible method. J Orthop Trauma. 27:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lepojarvi S, Pakarinen H, Savola O et al (2016) Rotational Dynamics of the normal distal tibiofibular joint with weight-bearing computed tomography. Foot Ankle Int 37:627–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dikos GD, Heisler J, Choplin RH et al (2012) Normal Tibiofibular relationships at the syndesmosis on axial CT imaging: J Orthop Trauma. 26:433–438

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Koo TK, Li MY (2015) A Guideline of Selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 15:155–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Norkus SA, Floyd RT (2001) The anatomy and mechanisms of syndesmotic ankle sprains. J Athl Train. 36:68–73

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This publication was supported by National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award number T32 AR007281. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Academic Training, Orthopaedic Trauma Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 70th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA

    Ashley E. Levack, Aleksey Dvorzhinskiy & Elizabeth B. Gausden

  2. Penn State College of Medicine and Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

    Matthew R. Garner

  3. Orthopaedic Trauma Service, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Stephen J. Warner

  4. Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgery Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Peter D. Fabricant

  5. Orthopaedic Trauma Service, Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USA

    Dean G. Lorich

Authors
  1. Ashley E. Levack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aleksey Dvorzhinskiy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth B. Gausden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew R. Garner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stephen J. Warner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter D. Fabricant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dean G. Lorich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashley E. Levack.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any data from living human participants or animals. The use of de-identified cadaveric specimens is exempt from IRB approval.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Dean G. Lorich: Deceased December 10, 2017

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levack, A.E., Dvorzhinskiy, A., Gausden, E.B. et al. Sagittal ankle position does not affect axial CT measurements of the syndesmosis in a cadaveric model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140, 25–31 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03209-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-019-03209-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation