Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Review
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CT:

computed tomography

MRI:

magnetic resonance imaging

References

  1. Mahmoud E-R, Tarek A (2013) Realignment-lengthening osteotomy for malunited distal fibular fracture. Int Orthop 37(7):1285–1290

    Google Scholar 

  2. van Nicole V, Katharina D, van Albert K, Jaarsma Ruurd L (2015) Long-term results after ankle syndesmosis injuries. Orthopedics 38(11):1001–1006

    Google 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): 1–15

  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):618–628

    PubMed  Google 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):107–110

    Google Scholar 

  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):521–525

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Boytim MJ, Fischer DA, Neumann L (1991) Syndesmotic ankle sprains. Am J Sports Med 19(3):294–298

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hopkinson WJ, St Pierre P, Ryan JB, Wheeler JH (1990) Syndesmosis sprains of the ankle. Foot Ankle 10(6):325–330

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):276–284

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Esat K, Murat B (2005) The crossed-leg test for examination of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Foot Ankle Int 26(2):187–188

    Google Scholar 

  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):991–995

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):604–609

    PubMed  Google 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):1380–1386

    Google Scholar 

  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):323–326

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):847–856

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):232–236

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rolfe B, Nordt W, Sallis JG, Distefano M (1989) Assessing fibular length using bimalleolar angular measurements. Foot Ankle 10(2):104–109

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Weber BG (1981) Lengthening osteotomy of the fibula to correct a widened mortice of the ankle after fracture. Int Orthop 4:289–293

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Anis AHSI, Stewart DG, Laupacis A (1995) Cost effective analysis of the Ottawa ankle rules. Ann Emerg Med 26:422–428

    CAS  PubMed  Google 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–S60

    Google 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):828–834

    Google Scholar 

  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):748–754

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hinds RM, Tran WH, Lorich DG (2014) Maisonneuve-hyperplantarflexion variant ankle fracture. Orthopedics 37(11):1040–1044

    Google 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):196–199

    Google Scholar 

  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):1369–1375

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mohamed T, Venugopal MK, Kamran S (2018) Arthroscopic grading of injuries of the inferior tibiofibular syndesmosis. J Foot Ankle Surg 57(6):1125–1129

    Google 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):513–528

    Google Scholar 

  28. Vukicević S, Stern-Padovan R, Vukicević D, Keros P (1980) Holographic investigations of the human tibiofibular interosseous membrane. Clin Orthop Relat Res 151:210–214

    Google Scholar 

  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):1095–1103

    CAS  PubMed  Google 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):604–608

    Google Scholar 

  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): 62–67

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):791–798

    CAS  PubMed  Google 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):793–796

    Google Scholar 

  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):1809–1815

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):435–438

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):456–463

    PubMed  Google 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):439–443

    Google Scholar 

  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): 2256–2261

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):779–786

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Piyush M, Ben R, Paul W-J (2018) Is it possible to overcompress the syndesmosis. J Foot Ankle Surg 57(5):1005–1009

    Google 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):1253–1257

    Google Scholar 

  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):440–446

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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):27–30

    Google 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):65–69

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kyle S, Panchbhavi Vinod K (2011) The fate of syndesmotic screws. Foot Ankle Int 32(5):519–525

    Google Scholar 

  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):736–741

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Brad W, Mohit B (2005) Predictors of functional outcome following transsyndesmotic screw fixation of ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma 19(2):102–108

    Google 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):242–246

    Google 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):1718–1723

    Google Scholar 

  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):262–266

    CAS  PubMed  Google 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):210–215

    Google 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):281–284

    Google Scholar 

  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):252–257

    CAS  PubMed  Google 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):359–364

    Google Scholar 

  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):548–554

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):98–106

    CAS  PubMed  Google 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):331–337

    Google Scholar 

  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):1069–1073

    CAS  PubMed  Google 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):203–209

    Google 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):80236

    Google Scholar 

  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):2828–2835

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Tim S (2012) Acute distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: a systematic review of suture-button versus syndesmotic screw repair. Int Orthop 36(6):1199–1206

    Google Scholar 

  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):1732–1738

    CAS  PubMed  Google 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):142–146

    Google Scholar 

  65. Lui TH (2010) Tri-ligamentous reconstruction of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: a minimally invasive approach. J Foot Ankle Surg 49(5):495–500

    PubMed  Google 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):541–545

    Google Scholar 

  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):250–256

    PubMed  Google 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): 1221–1227

    Google 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):2–6

    Google 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):12698

    Google 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):180–185

    Google 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):676–679

    Google Scholar 

  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):318–323

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Egger Anthony C, Berkowitz Mark J (2018) Operative treatment of the malunited fibula fracture. Foot Ankle Int 39(10):1242–1252

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1000–1004

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Rammelt S, Obruba P (2015) An update on the evaluation and treatment of syndesmotic injuries. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 41(6):601–614

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, Fuzhou Second Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University, Fu Zhou, 350007, Fujian, People’s Republic of China

    Guang-Shu Yu, Yan-Bin Lin & Guo-Sheng Xiong

  2. Graduate school, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fu Zhou, 350122, Fujian, People’s Republic of China

    Hong-Bin Xu & You-Ying Liu

Authors
  1. Guang-Shu Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yan-Bin Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guo-Sheng Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hong-Bin Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. You-Ying Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan-Bin Lin.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, GS., Lin, YB., Xiong, GS. et al. Diagnosis and treatment of ankle syndesmosis injuries with associated interosseous membrane injury: a current concept review. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 43, 2539–2547 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04396-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-019-04396-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation