These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Fate of the syndesmotic screw--Search for a prudent solution.
    Author: Kaftandziev I, Spasov M, Trpeski S, Zafirova-Ivanovska B, Bakota B.
    Journal: Injury; 2015 Nov; 46 Suppl 6():S125-9. PubMed ID: 26582218.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Ankle fractures are common injuries. Since the recognition of the importance of syndesmotic injury in ankle fractures, much of the scientific work has been focused on concomitant syndesmotic injury. Despite the invention of novel devices for restoration and maintenance of the congruent syndesmosis following syndesmotic injury, the metallic syndesmotic screw is still considered to be the "gold standard". The aim of this study was to compare the clinical results in patients who retained the syndesmosis screw with those in whom the screw was removed following open reduction and internal fixation of the malleolar fracture associated with syndesmosis disruption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 82 patients. Minimum follow-up was 12 months. Clinical evaluation included American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for patient general satisfaction. The condition of the screw (removed, intact or broken), presence of radiolucency around the syndesmotic screw and the tibiofibular clear space were recorded using final follow-up radiographs. RESULTS: Three cortices were engaged in 66 patients (80%) and quadricortical fixation was performed in the remaining 16 patients (20%). The number of engaged cortices did not correlate with the clinical outcome and screw fracture. A single syndesmotic screw was used in 71 patients (86%. The mean AOFAS score in the group with intact screw (I) was 83; the scores in the group with broken screw (B) and removed screw (R) were 92.5 and 85.5, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the three groups: this was due to the difference between groups I and B; the difference between groups I and R and groups B and R were not statistically significant. There were no statistically significant differences in VAS results. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcome between the group with the screw retained and the group in which the screw was removed; however, the group with broken screws had the best clinical outcome based on AOFAS score. Widening of the syndesmosis after screw removal was not evident. We do not recommend routine syndesmosis screw removal.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]