Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 11, pp 2539–2547 | Cite as

Diagnosis and treatment of ankle syndesmosis injuries with associated interosseous membrane injury: a current concept review

  • Guang-Shu Yu
  • Yan-Bin LinEmail author
  • Guo-Sheng Xiong
  • Hong-Bin Xu
  • You-Ying Liu
Review
  • 160 Downloads

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Tibiofibular syndesmosis Interosseous membrane Injuries Management 

Abbreviations

CT

computed tomography

MRI

magnetic resonance imaging

Notes

Authors’ contributions

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.

Funding

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.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    Mahmoud E-R, Tarek A (2013) Realignment-lengthening osteotomy for malunited distal fibular fracture. Int Orthop 37(7):1285–1290Google Scholar
  2. 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. 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
  4. 4.
    Xu D, Wang Y, Chunyu J, Maoqing F, Shiqi L, Lei Q, Peidong S, Jun O (2018) Strain distribution in the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament, posterior inferior tibiofibular ligament, and interosseous membrane using digital image correlation. Foot Ankle Int 39(5):618–628PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Rosati E, Medina MA (1987) The role of the tibiofibular interosseous membrane in the repair of fractures of the tibia and fibula. Ital J Orthop Traumatol 13(4):521–525PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boytim MJ, Fischer DA, Neumann L (1991) Syndesmotic ankle sprains. Am J Sports Med 19(3):294–298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hopkinson WJ, St Pierre P, Ryan JB, Wheeler JH (1990) Syndesmosis sprains of the ankle. Foot Ankle 10(6):325–330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alonso A, Khoury L, Adams R (1998) Clinical tests for ankle syndesmosis injury: reliability and prediction of return to function. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 27(4):276–284PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Esat K, Murat B (2005) The crossed-leg test for examination of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Foot Ankle Int 26(2):187–188Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van den Bekerom MP, Haverkamp D, Kerkhoffs GM, van Dijk C (2010) Syndesmotic stabilization in pronation external rotation ankle fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(4):991–995PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jenkinson RJ, Sanders DW, Macleod MD, Andrea D, Jeanette L (2005) Intraoperative diagnosis of syndesmosis injuries in external rotation ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma 19(9):604–609PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Sarkisian JS, Cody GW (1976) Closed treatment of ankle fractures: a new criterion for evaluation - a review of 250 cases. J Trauma 16(4):323–326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xenos JS, Hopkinson WJ, Mulligan ME, Olson EJ, Popovic NA (1995) The tibiofibular syndesmosis. Evaluation of the ligamentous structures, methods of fixation, and radiographic assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77(6):847–856PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Amendola A, Williams G, Foster D (2006) Evidence-based approach to treatment of acute traumatic syndesmosis (high ankle) sprains. Sports Med Arthrosc 14(4):232–236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rolfe B, Nordt W, Sallis JG, Distefano M (1989) Assessing fibular length using bimalleolar angular measurements. Foot Ankle 10(2):104–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weber BG (1981) Lengthening osteotomy of the fibula to correct a widened mortice of the ankle after fracture. Int Orthop 4:289–293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anis AHSI, Stewart DG, Laupacis A (1995) Cost effective analysis of the Ottawa ankle rules. Ann Emerg Med 26:422–428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 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
  22. 22.
    Cherney Steven M, Spraggs-Hughes Amanda G, McAndrew Christopher M, Ricci William M, Gardner Michael J (2016) Incisura morphology as a risk factor for syndesmotic malreduction. Foot Ankle Int 37(7):748–754PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hinds RM, Tran WH, Lorich DG (2014) Maisonneuve-hyperplantarflexion variant ankle fracture. Orthopedics 37(11):1040–1044Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 25.
    Durkee NJ, Jacobson JA, Jamadar DA, Femino John E, Karunakar Madhav A, Hayes Curtis W (2003) Sonographic evaluation of lower extremity interosseous membrane injuries: retrospective review in 3 patients. J Ultrasound Med 22(12):1369–1375PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. 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. 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
  29. 29.
    Hunt Kenneth J, Yannick G, Behn Anthony W, Braden C, Loretta C (2015) Ankle joint contact loads and displacement with progressive syndesmotic injury. Foot Ankle Int 36(9):1095–1103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 31.
    Stufkens Sjoerd A, van den Bekerom Michel PJ, Doornberg Job N, van Dijk C Niek, Kloen Peter (2011) Evidence-based treatment of maisonneuve fractures. J Foot Ankle Surg 50(1): 62–67PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sproule James A, Mohamed K, Michael O'S, McCabe John P (2004) Outcome after surgery for Maisonneuve fracture of the fibula. Injury 35(8):791–798PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 34.
    Thordarson DB, Motamed S, Hedman T, Ebramzadeh E, Bakshian S (1997) The effect of fibular malreduction on contact pressures in an ankle fracture malunion model. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79(12):1809–1815PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chissell HR, Jones J (1995) The influence of a diastasis screw on the outcome of Weber type-C ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77(3):435–438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van den Bekerom MP, Lamme B, Hogervorst M, Bolhuis Hugo W (2007) Which ankle fractures require syndesmotic stabilization. J Foot Ankle Surg 46(6):456–463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 38.
    Phisitkul Phinit, Ebinger Thomas, Goetz Jessica, Vaseenon Tanawat, Marsh J Lawrence (2012) Forceps reduction of the syndesmosis in rotational ankle fractures: a cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(24): 2256–2261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Markolf KL, Jackson S, McAllister DR (2012) Force and displacement measurements of the distal fibula during simulated ankle loading tests for high ankle sprains. Foot Ankle Int 33(9):779–786PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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. 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
  42. 42.
    Cosgrove Christopher T, Putnam Sara M, Cherney Steven M, Ricci William M, Amanda S-H, McAndrew Christopher M, Gardner Michael J (2017) Medial clamp tine positioning affects ankle syndesmosis malreduction. J Orthop Trauma 31(8):440–446PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 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. 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. 45.
    Kyle S, Panchbhavi Vinod K (2011) The fate of syndesmotic screws. Foot Ankle Int 32(5):519–525Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Thompson MC, Gesink DS (2000) Biomechanical comparison of syndesmosis fixation with 3.5- and 4.5-millimeter stainless steel screws. Foot Ankle Int 21(9):736–741PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 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. 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. 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
  50. 50.
    McBryde A, Chiasson B, Wilhelm A, Donovan F, Ray T, Bacilla P (1997) Syndesmotic screw placement: a biomechanical analysis. Foot Ankle Int 18(5):262–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 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. 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
  53. 53.
    Walley Kempland C, Hofmann Kurt J, Velasco Brian T, Kwon John Y (2017) Removal of hardware after syndesmotic screw fixation: a systematic literature review. Foot Ankle Spec 10(3):252–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 55.
    Sun H, Luo CF, Zhong B, Shi HP, Zhang CQ, Zeng BF (2014) 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 J 96(4):548–554PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Christodoulou G, Korovessis P, Giarmenitis S, Dimopoulos P, Sdougos G (1995) The use of sonography for evaluation of the integrity and healing process of the tibiofibular interosseous membrane in ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma 9(2):98–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. 58.
    Hamid N, Loeffler BJ, Braddy W, Kellam JF, Cohen BE, Bosse MJ (2009) Outcome after fixation of ankle fractures with an injury to the syndesmosis: the effect of the syndesmosis screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(8):1069–1073PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 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. 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
  61. 61.
    Naqvi Gohar A, Patricia C, Bernadette L, Rose G, Nasir A (2012) Fixation of ankle syndesmotic injuries: comparison of tightrope fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy of syndesmotic reduction. Am J Sports Med 40(12):2828–2835PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 63.
    Westermann Robert W, Chamnanni R, Goetz Jessica E, John F, Annunziato A, Phinit P (2014) The effect of suture-button fixation on simulated syndesmotic malreduction: a cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(20):1732–1738PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 65.
    Lui TH (2010) Tri-ligamentous reconstruction of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: a minimally invasive approach. J Foot Ankle Surg 49(5):495–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 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
  67. 67.
    Degroot H, Al-Omari AA, El Ghazaly SA (2011) Outcomes of suture button repair of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int 32(3):250–256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
  73. 73.
    Visser Harry J, Khawar M, Djali Robert A (2017) Fibular-lengthening osteotomy to correct a malunited ankle fracture using fresh-frozen femoral head allograft. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 107(4):318–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Egger Anthony C, Berkowitz Mark J (2018) Operative treatment of the malunited fibula fracture. Foot Ankle Int 39(10):1242–1252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Jeong Bi O, Hun BJ, Jae SW (2018) Ankle arthritis combined with chronic instability of the syndesmosis after ankle fracture with syndesmotic injury: a case report. J Foot Ankle Surg 57(5):1000–1004PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Rammelt S, Obruba P (2015) An update on the evaluation and treatment of syndesmotic injuries. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 41(6):601–614PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsFuzhou Second Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen UniversityFu ZhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Graduate schoolFujian University of Traditional Chinese MedicineFu ZhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations