Background: Suture tape (ST) augmented repair, an alternative to traditional Broström repair (BR), may protect the repaired anterior talofibular ligament during ligament healing. No systematic review of cohort studies has been conducted to compare traditional BR with ST-augmented repair for chronic lateral ankle instability. Purpose: To review the current evidence in the literature to ascertain whether ST-augmented repair is superior to traditional BR in managing chronic lateral ankle instability. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify relevant articles published in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The search included cohort studies comparing the efficacy of BR and ST-augmented repair procedures in terms of incidence of instability recurrence, functional scores, talar tilt angle (TTA), anterior talar translation (ATT), and complication rate. Methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad scale for randomized studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies. Results: A total of 4 clinical trials with 254 patients were included. No significant differences were detected between BR and ST-augmented repair procedures in terms of incidence of recurrent instability, American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score, Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure, TTA, ATT, or complication rate. The ST group appeared to have a shorter operation time compared with the BR group. Conclusion: No significant differences were found between ST-augmented repair and BR surgery regarding incidence of recurrent instability, functional outcome scores, or complication rates. Although technically challenging, the ST-augmented repair procedure appears to be a safe and fast option.
Improved outcome and earlier return to activity after suture tape augmentation versus Broström repair for chronic lateral ankle instability? A systematic review.
