Article Text

PDF
In a small retrospective cohort of patients with syndesmotic injury, only athletes benefited from placement of a suture button device: a pilot study
  1. Joseph J Kromka1,
  2. Monique C Chambers1,
  3. Adam Popchak2,
  4. James Irrgang2,
  5. MaCalus V Hogan3,4
  1. 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2Department of Physical Therapy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  3. 3Foot and Ankle Injury Research (FAIR) Group, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
  4. 4Department of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
  1. Correspondence to Dr MaCalus V Hogan, Foot and Ankle Injury Research (FAIR) Group, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA; hoganmv{at}upmc.edu

Abstract

Objectives Injuries to the ankle are common, with a significant number of ligamentous injuries involving the syndesmosis. In syndesmotic injuries severe enough to require surgical fixation, the two leading techniques are rigid screw and suture button fixation. The literature has shown that both techniques are effective, but there remains debate on the optimum method of treatment. The goal of this study was to evaluate patient-reported outcomes for these repair methods in a population of athletes.

Methods This study was a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients who had undergone rigid screw or suture button fixation for an injury to the ankle syndesmosis. Specifically, a subpopulation of athletes was examined as it was hypothesised that these high-demand patients would have higher patient-reported outcomes with ongoing suture button fixation. Study participants were identified through a search of the medical record and were recruited through mailed letters and phone calls. Participants completed patient-reported outcome questionnaires including the Activities of Daily Living and Sports Subscales of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) survey, FAAM Sports Subscale survey, Veteran’s Rand 12-item Health Survey (VR-12) and a customised athletic activity questionnaire. These patient-reported outcomes were compared between those who underwent screw fixation and those who underwent suture button fixation.

Results 32 patients completed the study, with 17 of these designated as ‘athletes’ competing in strenuous sports activities that involve jumping, cutting and hard pivoting including football, soccer, basketball, volleyball and gymnastics at the high school level or above. Patients were on average 3.9 years post op (SD 2.2). With the numbers available, no difference in outcomes between patients with rigid screw or suture button fixation was observed in the study as a whole. In a subpopulation of athletes, patients who received suture button fixation had higher FAAM scores compared with those treated with rigid screw fixation (p=0.02). Still, in the subpopulation of athletes, no statistical difference was observed with the available numbers for the other patient-reported outcomes.

Conclusion This pilot study of outcomes in an athletic population suggests that athletic patients may benefit from suture button fixation and lays the groundwork for future work examining the use of suture button fixation in high-demand patients.

Level of evidence Level III—Retrospective Comparative Study.

  • syndesmosis
  • syndesmotic
  • suture button
  • tightrope
  • athlete

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors JJK: project planning, conduction of the study from patient identification, chart review, and survey administration through to data analysis and manuscript compilation. MCC: project planning, manuscript writing and revision. AP: project planning, statistical analysis, manuscript revision. JI: supervision of the planning and conduction of the study throughout. Involved in planning, analysis and revision of the manuscript. MCVH: supervision of the planning and conduction of the study throughout. Involved in planning, analysis and revision of the manuscript. Alicia Oostdyk: coordination of the letter mailings. Megan Dalzell: coordination of the letter mailings.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board (IRB no. PRO15060588).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.