scholarly journals Response to “ Letter to the editor” for the article: Screw Versus Suture Button In Treatment Of Syndesmosis Instability: Comparison using Weightbearing CT Scan

Author(s):  
Mohamed Abdelaziz Elghazy ◽  
Noortje C. Hagemeijer ◽  
Daniel Guss ◽  
Ahmed El-Hawary ◽  
Anne H. Johnson ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 2473011419S0008
Author(s):  
Mohamed E. Abdelaziz ◽  
Noortje Hagemeijer ◽  
Daniel Guss ◽  
Ahmed El-Hawary ◽  
A. Holly Johnson ◽  
...  

Category: Ankle, Sports, Trauma, Syndesmosis Introduction/Purpose: Traumatic injuries to the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis are relatively common and can be associated with ankle fractures or occur as purely ligamentous injuries. Unstable syndesmotic injuries require surgical repair, generally performed using either screw or suture button fixation. The superiority of either fixation method remains a subject of ongoing debate. The aim of this study is to compare both clinical and radiographic outcomes of screw and suture button fixation of syndesmosis instability using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (ROMIS) and weight bearing CT scan (WBCT). Methods: Medical records were reviewed to identify patients who had a unilateral syndesmotic injury requiring surgical stabilization and who were at least one year out from injury. Exclusion criteria included patients less than 18 years old, ipsilateral pilon fracture, history of contralateral ankle or pilon fracture or syndesmosis injury, BMI >40, and any neurological impairment. Twenty eligible patients were recruited to complete PROMIS questionnaires and undergo bilateral WBCT scan of both ankles, divided into two groups. In the first group (n=10) the patients had undergone screw fixation of the syndesmosis, while in the second group (n=10) the syndesmosis was fixed using a suture button construct. All patients completed PROMIS questionnaires for pain intensity, pain interference, physical function and depression. Radiographic assessment was performed using axial images of WBCT scan of both the injured ankle and the contralateral normal side at a level one cm proximal to the tibial plafond (Figure 1). Results: At an average follow up of three years, none of the recruited patients required a revision surgery. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the four PROMIS questionnaires (P values ranged from 0.17 to 0.43). In the suture button group, the measurements of the injured side were significantly different from the normal side for the syndesmotic area (P=0.003), fibular rotation (P=0.004), anterior difference (P=0.025) and direct anterior difference (P=0.035). Other measurements of posterior difference, middle difference, direct posterior difference and fibular translation were not significantly different (P values ranged from 0.36 to 0.99). In the screw fixation group, the syndesmotic area was the only significantly different measurement in the injured side as compared to the normal side (P=0.006). Conclusion: Screw and suture button fixation for syndesmotic instability have similar clinical outcomes at average three years follow up as measured by PROMIS scores. Both screw and suture button did not entirely restore the syndesmotic area as compared to the contralateral normal ankle, suggesting some residual diastasis on weight bearing CT. In addition, as compared to screw fixation, the suture button did not seem to restore the normal fibular rotation, with residual external rotation of the fibula noted. Longer clinical follow up is necessary to understand the clinical implication of such malreduction.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 2473011420S0000
Author(s):  
Mohamed Abdelaziz ◽  
Daniel Guss ◽  
Anne H. Johnson ◽  
Christopher DiGiovanni ◽  
Noortje Hagemeijer ◽  
...  

Category: Trauma; Ankle; Sports Introduction/Purpose: Traumatic injuries to the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis are relatively common and can be associated with ankle fractures or occur as purely ligamentous injuries. Unstable syndesmotic injuries require surgical repair, generally performed using either screw or suture button fixation. The superiority of either fixation method remains a subject of ongoing debate. The aim of this study is to compare both clinical and radiographic outcomes of screw and suture button fixation of syndesmosis instability using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and weight bearing CT scan (WBCT). Methods: Medical records were reviewed to identify patients who had a unilateral syndesmotic injury requiring surgical stabilization and who were at least one year out from injury. Exclusion criteria included patients less than 18 years old, ipsilateral pilon fracture, history of contralateral ankle or pilon fracture or syndesmosis injury, BMI >40, and any neurological impairment. Twenty eligible patients were recruited to complete PROMIS questionnaires and undergo bilateral WBCT scan of both ankles, divided into two groups. In the first group (n=10) the patients had undergone screw fixation of the syndesmosis, while in the second group (n=10) the syndesmosis was fixed using a suture button construct. All patients completed PROMIS questionnaires for pain intensity, pain interference, physical function and depression. Radiographic assessment was performed using axial images of WBCT scan of both the injured ankle and the contralateral normal side at a level one cm proximal to the tibial plafond ( Figure 1 ). Results: At an average follow up of three years, none of the recruited patients required a revision surgery. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the four PROMIS questionnaires (P values ranged from 0.17 to 0.43). In the suture button group, the measurements of the injured side were significantly different from the normal side for the syndesmotic area (P=0.003), fibular rotation (P=0.004), anterior difference (P=0.025) and direct anterior difference (P=0.035). Other measurements of posterior difference, middle difference, direct posterior difference and fibular translation were not significantly different (P values ranged from 0.36 to 0.99). In the screw fixation group, the syndesmotic area was the only significantly different measurement in the injured side as compared to the normal side (P=0.006). Conclusion: Screw and suture button fixation for syndesmotic instability have similar clinical outcomes at average three years follow up as measured by PROMIS scores. Both screw and suture button did not entirely restore the syndesmotic area as compared to the contralateral normal ankle, suggesting some residual diastasis on weight bearing CT. In addition, as compared to screw fixation, the suture button did not seem to restore the normal fibular rotation, with residual external rotation of the fibula noted. Longer clinical follow up is necessary to understand the clinical implication of such malreduction.


2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 143
Author(s):  
Anthony Viste ◽  
Nader A.L. Zahrani ◽  
Nuno Brito ◽  
Christophe Lienhart ◽  
Michel Henri Fessy ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 2473011420S0004
Author(s):  
Ian Foran ◽  
Nasima Mehraban ◽  
Stephen K. Jacobsen ◽  
Daniel D. Bohl ◽  
Kamran S. Hamid ◽  
...  

Category: Hindfoot; Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: The Coleman block test has traditionally been used to distinguish between forefoot- and hindfoot-driven deformity as well as flexibility of cavovarus deformity. However, there has been no validation of the Coleman block test using x- rays or weightbearing CT scan. The purpose of this study was to compare hindfoot alignment in cavovarus feet with and without the Coleman block using clinical exam, x-ray, and weightbearing CT scan. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 7 feet in 7 patients. The average age was 57, there were 5 males, and the average BMI was 34.7. Average calcaneal pitch was 30 degrees. Clinical measurements were made using standing talocalcaneal angle (STCA) and resting calcaneal stance position (RCSP) with and without a Coleman block using a camera positioned at 0 degrees to the heels. Hindfoot angle (HFA) was measured off of Saltzman-view x-rays and off of weightbearing CT coronal reconstructions with and without the Coleman block. Finally, foot ankle offset (FAO) was measured with and without the Coleman block from weightbearing CT using Cubeview TALAS software. Differences before and after Coleman block were measured using paired t- testing and correlations between different hindfoot alignment measurements were made using Pearson correlation coefficients. Results:: The average change in STCA before and after Coleman block placement was 2.9 degrees (7.14 varus without block, 4.28 degrees of varus with block; p<0.05). The average change in hindfoot angle before and after Coleman block using X-ray was 7.4 degrees (14 degrees varus without block, 6 degrees varus with block; p=0.08), and using CT was 3.9 degrees (14 degrees varus without block, 10 degrees varus with block; p= 0.06). There was no significant change in FAO before and after Coleman block testing. STCA was best-correlated with FAO (R= 0.7, p<0.05). CT HFA was also well-correlated with FAO (R=0.68, p<0.05). There was lesser correlation between X-ray HFA and FAO (R=0.608, p<0.05) and X-ray HFA and SCTA (p=0.63, p<0.05). Conclusion:: Although Coleman block testing resulted in a decrease in varus, no patient had full re-constitution of physiologic hindfoot valgus with any measurement method. This suggests that either the forefoot was a partial (but never a complete) ‘driver’ of hindfoot varus deformity, or that there was some degree of rigidity in all patients tested. FAO did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference with and without Coleman block on this small sample size. FAO was best correlated with both clinical exam and CT HFA measurements. Clinical exam and weightbearing CT may be more reliable than radiographs in measuring cavovarus hindfoot alignment. [Figure: see text]


2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Ferri ◽  
Angela V. Scharfenberger ◽  
Gord Goplen ◽  
Timothy R. Daniels ◽  
Dawn Pearce
Keyword(s):  
Ct Scan ◽  

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 2473011416S0013
Author(s):  
Ettore Vulcano ◽  
Joseph A. Tracey ◽  
Mark S. Myerson

Author(s):  
Michael Willey ◽  
Jocelyn Compton ◽  
Conor Kleweno ◽  
Julie Agel ◽  
Elizabeth Scott ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dariusz Kotlęga ◽  
Anna Boczar-Wójcik ◽  
Barbara Peda ◽  
Przemysław Nowacki

Dear Editor-in-Chief, We would like to indicate a disorder that is very rare, may easily be misdiagnosed, and at the same time provokes diagnostic doubts. We will try to answer the question of whether all patients with post-dural puncture headache have to undergo a brain computed tomography (CT) scan (...)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document