scholarly journals Evaluation of the results of surgical treatment of ankle fractures with the tibiofibular syndesmosis injury

2016 ◽  
Vol 0 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
M. L. Golovakha ◽  
М. А. Kozhemyaka ◽  
S. O. Maslennikov
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (10) ◽  
pp. 25-32
Author(s):  
Sufang Huang ◽  
◽  
Chaoliang Wang ◽  
Xuesheng Sun. ◽  
◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (9) ◽  
pp. 2219-2229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Wang ◽  
Yingze Zhang ◽  
Zhaohui Song ◽  
Hengrui Chang ◽  
Ye Tian ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 107110072096479
Author(s):  
Gi Beom Kim ◽  
Chul Hyun Park

Background: This study aimed to assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of hybrid fixation for Danis-Weber type C ankle fractures with a syndesmotic injury. Methods: From January 2016 to April 2018, we retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent hybrid fixation for Danis-Weber type C ankle fractures with syndesmotic injury with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. We excluded patients who achieved syndesmosis stability after fracture fixation. In all patients, we allowed partial weightbearing at 4 weeks postoperatively. We evaluated the visual analog scale for ankle pain, the Olerud-Molander ankle score, and the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score. Malreduction of the syndesmosis was defined based on 2 previously reported methods. Fourteen patients (11 men and 3 women) were included in this study. There were 11 patients with pronation external rotation-type fractures and 3 patients with Maisonneuve fractures. The average age at operation was 37.2 years (range, 18-70 years). Results: Clinical scores were significantly improved at the last follow-up. Postoperative malreduction was observed only in 1 patient (7.1%). Conclusion: Hybrid fixation using a suture-button device combined with a syndesmotic screw in Danis-Weber type C fractures with syndesmosis injury showed a high accuracy of reduction, a low rate of diastasis, and favorable clinical outcomes. This combined method could be a good alternative treatment option for Danis-Weber type C ankle fractures with a syndesmosis injury. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series.


1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 956
Author(s):  
Kyung Jin Song ◽  
Keun Ho Yang ◽  
Kyung Rae Lee ◽  
Ju Hong Lee ◽  
Byung Yun Hwang

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diederik Pieter Johan Smeeing ◽  
Roderick Marijn Houwert ◽  
Jan Paul Briet ◽  
Rolf Hendrik Herman Groenwold ◽  
Koen Willem Wouter Lansink ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 2473011419S0017
Author(s):  
Matthew N Fournier ◽  
Joseph T Cline ◽  
Adam Seal ◽  
Richard A Smith ◽  
Clayton C Bettin ◽  
...  

Category: Ankle, Trauma Introduction/Purpose: Walk-in and “afterhours” clinics are a common setting in which patients may seek care for musculoskeletal complaints. These clinics may be staffed by orthopaedic surgeons, nonsurgical physicians, advanced practice nurses, or physician assistants. If orthopaedic surgeons are more efficient than nonoperative providers at facilitating the care of operative injuries in this setting is unknown. This study assesses whether evaluation by a nonoperative provider delays the care of patients with operative ankle fractures compared to those seen by an orthopaedic surgeon in an orthopaedic walk-in clinic. Methods: Following IRB approval, a cohort of patients who were seen in a walk-in setting and who subsequently underwent surgical treatment for an isolated ankle fracture were retrospectively identified. The cohort was divided based on whether the initial clinic visit had been conducted by an operative or nonoperative provider. A second cohort of patients who were evaluated and subsequently treated by a fellowship-trained foot and ankle surgeon in their private practice was used as a control group. Outcome measures included total number of clinic visits before surgery, total number of providers seen, days until evaluation by treating surgeon, and days until definitive surgical management. Results: 138 patients were seen in a walk-in setting and subsequently underwent fixation of an ankle fracture. 61 were seen by an orthopaedic surgeon, and 77 were seen by a nonoperative provider. No significant differences were found between the operative and nonoperative groups when comparing days to evaluation by treating surgeon (4.1 vs 4.5, p=.31), or days until definitive surgical treatment (8.4 vs 8.8, p=.58). 62 patients who were seen and treated solely in a single surgeon’s practice had significantly fewer clinic visits (1.11 vs 2.03 and 2.09, p<.05), as well as days between evaluation and surgery compared to the walk-in groups (5.44 vs 8.44 and 8.78, p<.05). Conclusion: Initial evaluation in a walk-in orthopaedic clinic setting is associated with a longer duration between initial evaluation and treatment compared to a conventional foot and ankle surgeon’s clinic, but this difference may not be clinically significant. Evaluation by a nonoperative provider is not associated with an increased duration to definitive treatment compared to an operative provider.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document