Diagnosis and treatment of ankle syndesmosis injuries with associated interosseous membrane injury: a current concept review
- 160 Downloads
Tibiofibular syndesmosis injury leads to ankle pain and dysfunction when ankle injuries are not treated properly. Despite several studies having been performed, many questions about diagnosis and treatment remain unanswered, especially in ankle syndesmosis injury with interosseous membrane injury. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to help guide best practice recommendations.
This review explores the mechanism of injury, clinical features, diagnosis methods, and the treatment strategy for ankle syndesmosis injury with interosseous membrane injury to highlight the current evidence in terms of the controversies surrounding the management of these injuries.
Radiological and CT examination are an important basis for diagnosing ankle syndesmosis injury. Physical examination combined with MRI to determine the damage to the interosseous membrane is significant in guiding the treatment of ankle syndesmosis injury with interosseous membrane injury. In the past, inserting syndesmosis screws was the gold standard for treating ankle syndesmosis injury. However, there were increasingly more controversies regarding loss of reduction and broken nails, so elastic fixation has become more popular in recent years.
Anatomical reduction and effective fixation are the main aspects to be considered in the treatment of ankle syndesmosis injury with interosseous membrane injury and are the key to reducing postsurgery complications.
KeywordsTibiofibular syndesmosis Interosseous membrane Injuries Management
magnetic resonance imaging
Guang-Shu Yu participated in the design of the study and performed the statistical analysis. Yan-Bin Lin conceived the study and participated in its design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript. Guo-Sheng Xiong participated in literature search and data integration. Hong-Bin Xu and You-Ying Liu participated in statistical analysis of data.
Guang-Shu Yu is currently receiving grants from Fujian Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (2016 J01597), Fuzhou Science and Technology Plan Project of China (2017-S-130-5). Our team was funded by the provincial key clinical special construction project in Fujian Province. Our team has received funding from provincial-level clinical key specialist construction projects (2018 NO: 145). For the remaining authors, none were declared.
Compliance with ethical standards
Availability of data and material
We state that all data generated during the present study are included in this article.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 1.Mahmoud E-R, Tarek A (2013) Realignment-lengthening osteotomy for malunited distal fibular fracture. Int Orthop 37(7):1285–1290Google Scholar
- 2.van Nicole V, Katharina D, van Albert K, Jaarsma Ruurd L (2015) Long-term results after ankle syndesmosis injuries. Orthopedics 38(11):1001–1006Google Scholar
- 3.Mait Alexander Ritz, Forman Jason Lee, Nie Bingbing, Donlon John Paul, Mane Adwait, Forghani Ali Reza, Anderson Robert B, Cooper M Truitt, Kent Richard W (2018) Propagation of syndesmotic injuries during forced external rotation in flexed cadaveric ankles. Orthop J Sports Med 6(6): 1–15Google Scholar
- 5.Manyi W, Guowei R, Shengsong Y, Chunyan J (2000) A sample of Chinese literature MRI diagnosis of interosseous membrane injury in Maisonneuve fractures of the fibula. Injury 31(3):107–110Google Scholar
- 10.Esat K, Murat B (2005) The crossed-leg test for examination of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Foot Ankle Int 26(2):187–188Google Scholar
- 13.Murad P, Onur K, Zafer G, Emre C, Kubilay C, Nuri AC (2017) A radiographic dye method for intraoperative evaluation of syndesmotic injuries. Foot Ankle Int 38(12):1380–1386Google Scholar
- 20.Massimiliano C, Giovanni V, Vito P, Giuseppe S, Francesco R, Antonio S, Caterina C, Davide B, Biagio M (2018) Beyond the pillars of the ankle: a prospective randomized CT analysis of syndesmosis’ injuries in Weber B and C type fractures. Injury 49(3):54–S60Google Scholar
- 21.Tae-Keun A, Seung-Myung C, Jae-Young K, Lee W-C (2017) Isolated syndesmosis diastasis: computed tomography scan assessment with arthroscopic correlation. Arthroscopy 33(4):828–834Google Scholar
- 23.Hinds RM, Tran WH, Lorich DG (2014) Maisonneuve-hyperplantarflexion variant ankle fracture. Orthopedics 37(11):1040–1044Google Scholar
- 24.Pablo W, Cristian O, Omar V, Paul A, Diego Z, Emilio W (2016) Interosseous membrane window size for tibialis posterior tendon transfer-geometrical and MRI analysis. Foot Ankle Surg 22(3):196–199Google Scholar
- 26.Mohamed T, Venugopal MK, Kamran S (2018) Arthroscopic grading of injuries of the inferior tibiofibular syndesmosis. J Foot Ankle Surg 57(6):1125–1129Google Scholar
- 27.Timothy A, Dong Q, Jon J, Corrie Y, Girish G (2019) Normal and injured ankle ligaments on ultrasonography with magnetic resonance imaging correlation. J Ultrasound Med 38(2):513–528Google Scholar
- 28.Vukicević S, Stern-Padovan R, Vukicević D, Keros P (1980) Holographic investigations of the human tibiofibular interosseous membrane. Clin Orthop Relat Res 151:210–214Google Scholar
- 30.Anant K, Charlebois Steven J, Lyle CE, Smith Richard A, Daniels AU, Crates John M (2003) Effect of fibular plate fixation on rotational stability of simulated distal tibial fractures treated with intramedullary nailing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85(4):604–608Google Scholar
- 33.John L, Sherief E, Kartik H, Hiro T (2006) Revisiting the concept of talar shift in ankle fractures. Foot Ankle Int 27(10):793–796Google Scholar
- 37.Claude SH, Shah Anjan R, Sanders Roy W (2012) The functional consequence of syndesmotic joint malreduction at a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Orthop Trauma 26(7):439–443Google Scholar
- 40.Piyush M, Ben R, Paul W-J (2018) Is it possible to overcompress the syndesmosis. J Foot Ankle Surg 57(5):1005–1009Google Scholar
- 41.Tyler G, Jonathan E, Mohammad G, Micah B, Aron L, Brian V, Ara N, Kwon John Y (2017) Overtightening of the syndesmosis revisited and the effect of syndesmotic malreduction on ankle dorsiflexion. Injury 48(6):1253–1257Google Scholar
- 43.Andrzej B, Bartłomiej K, Maciej K, Marcin F, Stefan R (2019) Operative setup to improve sagittal syndesmotic reduction: technical tip. J Orthop Trauma 33(1):27–30Google Scholar
- 44.Matthew H, Long L, Stuart W, Eric M, Roger H (2006) Syndesmosis fixation: analysis of shear stress via axial load on 3.5-mm and 4.5-mm quadricortical syndesmotic screws. J Foot Ankle Surg 45(2):65–69Google Scholar
- 45.Kyle S, Panchbhavi Vinod K (2011) The fate of syndesmotic screws. Foot Ankle Int 32(5):519–525Google Scholar
- 47.Brad W, Mohit B (2005) Predictors of functional outcome following transsyndesmotic screw fixation of ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma 19(2):102–108Google Scholar
- 48.Eric B, Timothy C, David T (2010) Ankle fracture syndesmosis fixation and management: the current practice of orthopedic surgeons. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 39(5):242–246Google Scholar
- 49.Tim S, van Zuuren WJ, van den Bekerom Michel PJ, Vogels Lucas MM, van Lieshout Esther MM (2012) The management of acute distal tibio-fibular syndesmotic injuries: results of a nationwide survey. Injury 43(10):1718–1723Google Scholar
- 51.Ozgur V, Serhan EM, Levent A, Suleyman T (2014) Biomechanical evaluation of syndesmotic screw position: a finite-element analysis. J Orthop Trauma 28(4):210–215Google Scholar
- 52.Kumar JS, Kearns Stephen R (2014) Ligamentous advancement for the treatment of subacute syndesmotic injuries. Report of a new technique in 5 cases. Foot Ankle Surg 20(4):281–284Google Scholar
- 54.Yi-Ton H, Wu C-C, Lee W-C, Kuo-Feng F, I-Chuan T, Lee P-C (2011) Surgical treatment of syndesmotic diastasis: emphasis on effect of syndesmotic screw on ankle function. Int Orthop 35(3):359–364Google Scholar
- 57.Per H, Knut S (2004) Tricortical versus quadricortical syndesmosis fixation in ankle fractures: a prospective, randomized study comparing two methods of syndesmosis fixation. J Orthop Trauma 18(6):331–337Google Scholar
- 59.Thomas H, Werner S, Andreas B (2012) Motion of the fibula relative to the tibia and its alterations with syndesmosis screws: a cadaver study. Foot Ankle Surg 18(3):203–209Google Scholar
- 60.Qinghua L, Kun Z, Yan Z, Zhong L, Yu B, Guoxian P (2013) Analysis of the stress and displacement distribution of inferior tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries repaired with screw fixation: a finite element study. PLoS One 8(12):80236Google Scholar
- 62.Tim S (2012) Acute distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: a systematic review of suture-button versus syndesmotic screw repair. Int Orthop 36(6):1199–1206Google Scholar
- 64.Brian T, Alan W, Matt H, Paraic M, Moira O'B (2003) Suture-endobutton fixation of ankle tibio-fibular diastasis: a cadaver study. Foot Ankle Int 24(2):142–146Google Scholar
- 66.Fantry AJ, O'Donnell SW, Born CT, Hayda Roman A (2017) Deep infections after syndesmotic fixation with a suture button device. Orthopedics 40(3):541–545Google Scholar
- 68.Lambers KT, van den Bekerom MP, Doornberg JN, Stufkens Sjoerd AS, van Dijk C Niek, Kloen Peter (2013) Long-term outcome of pronation-external rotation ankle fractures treated with syndesmotic screws only. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(17): 1221–1227Google Scholar
- 69.Ajay M, Sanders David W, Christina T, MacLeod Mark D (2010) Functional and radiographic results of patients with syndesmotic screw fixation: implications for screw removal. J Orthop Trauma 24(1):2–6Google Scholar
- 70.Lu B, Wen Z, Wentao Z, Jianxin L, Honglei Z (2018) Correlation factors for distal syndesmosis ossification following internal fixation of ankle fracture. Sci Rep 8(1):12698Google Scholar
- 71.Robbie R, Nina K, Clement Nick D, Keenan Gary F (2019) Ankle fractures with syndesmotic stabilisation are associated with a high rate of secondary osteoarthritis. Foot Ankle Surg 25(2):180–185Google Scholar
- 72.Botchu R, Douis H, Davies AM, James SL, Puls F, Grimer R (2013) Post-traumatic heterotopic ossification of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis mimicking a surface osteosarcoma. Clin Radiol 68(12):676–679Google Scholar