Camarillo-Juárez F, García-Ruiz M, Negrete-Arvizu H

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 83-86
PDF size: 259.08 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: the ankle is a modified hinge-shaped synovial joint. Multiple studies have been performed where no significant difference has been observed, as well as similar functional evaluation between patients with open reduction and internal fixation of the ankle with and without transsyndesmotic fixation of Weber B ankle fractures. Objective: to determine a comparison by means of functional evaluation based on the AOFAS scale in patients with and without transsyndesmal fixation. Material and methods: cross-sectional and retrospective study. Clinical-radiographic records of patients with a diagnosis of Weber B type ankle fractures who have undergone surgical procedures and are in the follow-up period in the Traumatology and Orthopedics Unit from January 1, 2022 to January 1, 2024 were included. Results: mean age was 40.1 ± 13.3 years. 47.9% (n = 46) of the files were female, and 52.1% (n = 50) were male. 47.9% (n = 46) of the patients underwent transindorsal fixation, while 52.1% (n = 50) did not undergo transindorsal fixation. The primary mechanism of injury was pronation with abduction 43.8% (n = 42) and supination with external rotation with 40.6% (n = 39). The AOFAS score was reported with 83.3% (n = 80) was excellent and the remaining 16.7% was good. Conclusion: patients with transsyndesmotic fixation in patients with Weber B ankle fractures have a better functional assessment by AOFAS scale compared to those without transsyndesmotic fixation.

REFERENCES

1. Logters T, Hakimi M, Thelen S, Windolf J, Linhart W. Stabilization of ankle fragility fractures with a transtibiocalcaneal fusion nail. Osteosynth Trauma Care. 2007; 15(4): 150-4. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1004793.

2. Lin CF, Gross ML, Weinhold P. Ankle syndesmosis injuries: anatomy, biomechanics, mechanism of injury, and clinical guidelines for diagnosis and intervention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006; 36(6): 372-84.

3. Coughlin MJ, Saltzman CL, Medycyna RBA, Mann RA, Mann's surgery of the foot and ankle. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier, Cop; 2014.

4. de Boer AS, Tjioe RJC, Van der Sijde F, Meuffels DE, den Hoed PT, Van der Vlies CH, et al. The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Scale; translation and validation of the Dutch language version for ankle fractures. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(8): e017040.

5. So E, Rushing CJ, Simon JE, Goss DA Jr, Prissel MA, Berlet GC. Association between bone mineral density and elderly ankle fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020; 59(5): 1049-57.

6. Zaghloul A, Haddad B, Barksfield R, Davis B. Early complications of surgery in operative treatment of ankle fractures in those over 60: a review of 186 cases. Injury. 2014; 45(4): 780-3.

7. Scheer RC, Newman JM, Zhou JJ, Oommen AJ, Naziri Q, Shah NV, et al. Ankle fracture epidemiology in the united states: patient-related trends and mechanisms of injury. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2020; 59(3): 479-83.

8. Van Heest TJ, Lafferty PM. Injuries to the ankle syndesmosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014; 96(7): 603-13.

9. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 1994; 15(7): 349-53.

10. Nguyen MQ, Dalen I, Iversen MM, Harboe K, Paulsen A. Ankle fractures: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures and their measurement properties. Qual Life Res. 2023; 32(1): 27-45.

11. Egol KA, Pahk B, Walsh M, Tejwani NC, Davidovitch RI, Koval KJ. Outcome after unstable ankle fracture: effect of syndesmotic stabilization. J Orthop Trauma. 2010; 24(1): 7-11.

12. Laflamme M, Belzile EL, Bédard L, van den Bekerom MP, Glazebrook M, Pelet S. A prospective randomized multicenter trial comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated surgically with a static or dynamic implant for acute ankle syndesmosis rupture. J Orthop Trauma. 2015; 29(5): 216-23.

13. Dingemans SA, Birnie MFN, Sanders FRK, van den Bekerom MPJ, Backes M, van Beeck E, et al. Routine versus on demand removal of the syndesmotic screw; a protocol for an international randomised controlled trial (RODEO-trial). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018; 19(1): 35.

14. Kannus P, Niemi S, Parkkari J, Sievanen H. Declining incidence of fall-induced ankle fractures in elderly adults: Finnish statistics between 1970 and 2014. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016; 136(9): 1243-6.

15. Churruca K, Pomare C, Ellis LA, Long JC, Henderson SB, Murphy LED, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expect. 2021; 24(4): 1015-24.

16. Ibrahim T, Beiri A, Azzabi M, Best AJ, Taylor GJ, Menon DK. Reliability and validity of the subjective component of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society clinical rating scales. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2007; 46(2): 65-74.

17. Hijji FY, Schneider AD, Pyper M, Laughlin RT. The popularity of outcome measures used in the foot and ankle literature. Foot Ankle Spec. 2020; 13(1): 58-68.

18. Ng R, Broughton N, Williams C. Measuring recovery after ankle fractures: a systematic review of the psychometric properties of scoring systems. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2018; 57(1): 149-54.

19. Madeley NJ, Wing KJ, Topliss C, Penner MJ, Glazebrook MA, Younger AS. Responsiveness and validity of the SF-36, Ankle Osteoarthritis scale, AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Score, and Foot Function Index in end stage ankle arthritis. Foot Ankle Int. 2012; 33(1): 57-63.

20. Button G, Pinney S. A meta-analysis of outcome rating scales in foot and ankle surgery: is there a valid, reliable, and responsive system? Foot Ankle Int. 2004; 25(8): 521-5.

21. Kitaoka HB, Meeker JE, Phisitkul P, Adams SB Jr, Kaplan JR, Wagner E. AOFAS position statement regarding patient-reported outcome measures. Foot Ankle Int. 2018; 39(12): 1389-93.

22. Analay Akbaba Y, Celik D, Ogut RT. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of Turkish version of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot scale. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2016; 55(6): 1139-42.

23. Rodrigues RC, Masiero D, Mizusaki JM, Imoto AM, Peccin MS, Cohen M, et al. Translation, cultural adaptation and validity of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot scale. Acta Ortop Bras. 2008; 16(2): 107-11.

24. Paget LDA, Sierevelt IN, Tol JL, Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Reurink G. The completely patient-reported version of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score: a valid and reliable measurement for ankle osteoarthritis. J ISAKOS. 2023; 8(5): 345-51.

25. Coster MC, Rosengren BE, Bremander A, Brudin L, Karlsson MK. Comparison of the Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS). Foot Ankle Int. 2014; 35(10): 1031-6.

26. Sayyed-Hosseinian SH, Hassankhani GG, Bagheri F, Alavi N, Shojaie B, Mousavian A. Validation of the Persian version of the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Score (AOFAS) questionnaire. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2018; 6(3): 233-9.

27. SooHoo NF, Vyas R, Samimi D. Responsiveness of the foot function index, AOFAS clinical rating systems, and SF-36 after foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2006; 27(11): 930-4.

28. Shazadeh Safavi P, Janney C, Jupiter D, Kunzler D, Bui R, Panchbhavi VK. A systematic review of the outcome evaluation tools for the foot and ankle. Foot Ankle Spec. 2019; 12(5): 461-70.

29. Pinsker E, Daniels TR. AOFAS position statement regarding the future of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems. Foot Ankle Int. 2011; 32(9): 841-2.

30. Pinsker E, Inrig T, Daniels TR, Warmington K, Beaton DE. Reliability and validity of 6 measures of pain, function, and disability for ankle arthroplasty and arthrodesis. Foot Ankle Int. 2015; 36(6): 617-25.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

III