{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,26]],"date-time":"2026-08-26T14:44:10Z","timestamp":1787755450869,"version":"build-2784847793"},"reference-count":33,"publisher":"Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)","issue":"5","content-domain":{"domain":["lww.com","ovid.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Acute ankle diastasis injuries are complex and debilitating. These injuries occur when the syndesmotic complex becomes compromised. Treatments of acute syndesmotic injuries include static fixation with screws, dynamic fixation with an elastic device, or anatomic repair of the damaged ligament. However, there is disagreement over which method is most effective. The primary purpose of this study was to compare the 3 treatment methods for acute syndesmotic injuries.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>A systematic literature search was conducted on Embase and PubMed. Studies that compared at least 2 groups with relevant American Orthopaedic Foot &amp; Ankle Society (AOFAS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), reoperation rate, and complication (implant failure, implant irritation, and infection) data were analyzed. Statistical analysis for this study was performed using Review Manager 5.4, with a standard p-value of \u22640.05 for statistical significance.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Twenty-one studies including a total of 1,059 patients (452 dynamic, 529 static, and 78 anatomic) were included for analysis. Dynamic fixation had significantly higher mean AOFAS scores at 3 months postoperation by 5.12 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-9.96, p = 0.04) as well as at 1 year postoperation by 4.64 points (95% CI, 1.74-7.55, p = 0.002) than static fixation. Anatomic repair had significantly higher AOFAS scores at 6 months postoperation by 3.20 points (95% CI, 1.06-5.34, p = 0.003) and 1 year postoperation by 1.86 points (95% CI, 0.59-3.14, p = 0.004) than static fixation. Dynamic fixation had significantly higher AOFAS scores at 6 months postoperation by 2.81 points (95% CI, 0.76-4.86, p = 0.007), 12 months postoperation by 3.17 points (95% CI, 0.76-5.58, p = 0.01), and at 2 years postoperation by 5.56 points (95% CI, 3.80-7.32, p &lt; 0.001) than anatomic repair. Dynamic fixation also had a lower VAS score average (favorable), only significant at 12 months postoperation, than static fixation by 0.7 points (95% CI \u22120.99 to \u22120.40, p &lt; 0.001). Anatomic repair did not have significant difference in VAS scores compared with static fixation. Anatomic repair had significantly lower VAS scores at 12 months postoperation by 0.32 points (95% CI \u22120.59 to \u22120.05, p = 0.02) than dynamic fixation. Dynamic fixation had significantly less implant failures (odds ratio [OR], 0.13, 95% CI, 0.05-0.32, p &lt; 0.001) than static fixation. Anatomic repair was not significantly different from static fixation in the complication metrics. Dynamic fixation and anatomic repair were not significantly different in the complication metrics either. Dynamic fixation had a significantly lower reoperation rate than static fixation (OR, 0.23, 95% CI, 0.09-0.54, p &lt; 0.001). Anatomic repair did not have a significantly different reoperation rate compared with static fixation. However, dynamic fixation had a significantly lower reoperation rate than anatomic repair (OR, 4.65, 95% CI, 1.10-19.76, p = 0.04).<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Dynamic fixation seems to demonstrate superior early clinical outcomes. However, these advantages become negligible in the long term when compared with alternative options. Dynamic fixation is associated with a lower risk for complications, specifically seen with the decrease in implant failures. This method also presents a significantly lower reoperation rate compared with the other treatment approaches. Apart from showing improved early clinical outcomes in comparison with static fixation, anatomic repair did not have significant distinctions in other metrics, including complications or reoperation rate.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Level of Evidence:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      <jats:underline>Level III<\/jats:underline>\n                      . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.2106\/jbjs.rvw.24.00031","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2024,5,6]],"date-time":"2024-05-06T14:14:55Z","timestamp":1715004895000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/lww.0000000000001000","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Acute Ankle Diastasis Injuries Treated with Dynamic, Static Fixation or Anatomic Repair"],"prefix":"10.2106","volume":"12","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-5895-8276","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Jiayong","family":"Liu","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0009-3104-3736","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Shiva","family":"Senthilkumar","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0002-7681-5778","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Thomas","family":"Cho","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0003-1876-9910","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Chris G.","family":"Sanford","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"276","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,5]]},"reference":[{"issue":"1","key":"r1-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"284","DOI":"10.1007\/s11999-011-1982-z","article-title":"Incidence of patients with lower extremity injuries presenting to US emergency departments by anatomic region, disease category, and age","volume":"470","author":"Lambers","year":"2012","journal-title":"Clin Orthop Relat Res"},{"issue":"1","key":"r2-20240731","first-page":"68","article-title":"The anatomy and mechanisms of syndesmotic ankle sprains","volume":"36","author":"Norkus","year":"2001","journal-title":"J Athl Train"},{"issue":"9","key":"r4-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"403","DOI":"10.1302\/2058-5241.2.160084","article-title":"Management of syndesmotic injuries of the ankle","volume":"2","author":"de-Las-Heras Romero","year":"2017","journal-title":"EFORT Open Rev"},{"issue":"4","key":"r5-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"304","DOI":"10.1007\/s12178-013-9184-9","article-title":"Syndesmosis injuries","volume":"6","author":"Hunt","year":"2013","journal-title":"Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med"},{"key":"r6-20240731","first-page":"98","article-title":"Foot and ankle tips & tricks: syndesmotic screw fixation\u2014principles and technique tips and tricks","volume":"31","author":"Velasco","year":"2021","journal-title":"Univ Pa Orthop J"},{"issue":"11","key":"r7-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1040","DOI":"10.3113\/FAI.2011.1040","article-title":"Complications of syndesmotic screw removal","volume":"32","author":"Schepers","year":"2011","journal-title":"Foot Ankle Int"},{"issue":"2","key":"r8-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e13","DOI":"10.2106\/JBJS.ST.17.00050","article-title":"Use of suture button in the treatment of syndesmosis injuries","volume":"8","author":"Andersen","year":"2018","journal-title":"JBJS Essent Surg Tech"},{"issue":"7","key":"r9-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1574","DOI":"10.1016\/j.injury.2016.04.014","article-title":"Anterior-inferior tibiofibular ligament anatomical repair and augmentation versus trans-syndesmosis screw fixation for the syndesmotic instability in external-rotation type ankle fracture with posterior malleolus involvement: a prospective and comparative study","volume":"47","author":"Zhan","year":"2016","journal-title":"Injury"},{"issue":"1","key":"r10-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"80","DOI":"10.1186\/s12893-023-01982-z","article-title":"Comparison the treatment of anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament anatomical repair and syndesmosis screw fixation for syndesmotic injuries in ankle fracture","volume":"23","author":"Lin","year":"2023","journal-title":"BMC Surg"},{"issue":"7","key":"r11-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"877","DOI":"10.1177\/1071100721990008","article-title":"Anatomic repair vs closed reduction of the syndesmosis","volume":"42","author":"Del Balso","year":"2021","journal-title":"Foot Ankle Int"},{"issue":"7","key":"r12-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e1000097","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pmed.1000097","article-title":"Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement","volume":"6","author":"Moher","year":"2009","journal-title":"PLoS Med"},{"issue":"6","key":"r13-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"770","DOI":"10.1080\/17453674.2020.1818175","article-title":"Randomized trial comparing suture button with single 3.5 mm syndesmotic screw for ankle syndesmosis injury: similar results at 2 years","volume":"91","author":"R\u00e6der","year":"2020","journal-title":"Acta Orthop"},{"issue":"5","key":"r14-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"985","DOI":"10.1053\/j.jfas.2016.05.002","article-title":"A comparison of screw fixation and suture-button fixation in a syndesmosis injury in an ankle fracture","volume":"55","author":"Kim","year":"2016","journal-title":"J Foot Ankle Surg"},{"issue":"10","key":"r15-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"3156","DOI":"10.1007\/s00167-017-4820-3","article-title":"Lower complication rate and faster return to sports in patients with acute syndesmotic rupture treated with a new knotless suture button device","volume":"26","author":"Colcuc","year":"2018","journal-title":"Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc"},{"issue":"5","key":"r16-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"216","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0000000000000245","article-title":"A prospective randomized multicenter trial comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated surgically with a static or dynamic implant for acute ankle syndesmosis rupture","volume":"29","author":"Laflamme","year":"2015","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"issue":"suppl 2","key":"r17-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"S19","DOI":"10.1016\/j.injury.2015.05.027","article-title":"Comparison of screw fixation with elastic fixation methods in the treatment of syndesmosis injuries in ankle fractures","volume":"46","author":"Seyhan","year":"2015","journal-title":"Injury"},{"issue":"1","key":"r18-20240731","first-page":"32","article-title":"Treatment of syndesmoses disruptions: a prospective, randomized study comparing conventional screw fixation vs TightRope\u00ae fiber wire fixation: medium term results","volume":"8","author":"Coetzee","year":"2009","journal-title":"SA Orthop J"},{"key":"r19-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"207","DOI":"10.1097\/01.blo.0000151845.75230.a0","article-title":"Suture-button syndesmosis fixation: accelerated rehabilitation and improved outcomes","volume":"431","author":"Thornes","year":"2005","journal-title":"Clin Orthop Relat Res"},{"issue":"10","key":"r20-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"3143","DOI":"10.1016\/j.injury.2021.06.025","article-title":"Suture button versus syndesmosis screw fixation in pronation-external rotation ankle fractures: a minimum 6-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial","volume":"52","author":"Lehtola","year":"2021","journal-title":"Injury"},{"issue":"11","key":"r21-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"531","DOI":"10.1097\/BOT.0000000000001559","article-title":"Improved reduction of the tibiofibular syndesmosis with TightRope compared with screw fixation: results of a randomized controlled study","volume":"33","author":"Sanders","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Orthop Trauma"},{"issue":"6","key":"r22-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1119","DOI":"10.1016\/j.injury.2015.02.004","article-title":"A prospective randomised study comparing TightRope and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy and maintenance of syndesmotic reduction assessed with bilateral computed tomography","volume":"46","author":"Kortekangas","year":"2015","journal-title":"Injury"},{"issue":"12","key":"r23-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1317","DOI":"10.1177\/1071100716661221","article-title":"Evaluation of reduction accuracy of suture-button and screw fixation techniques for syndesmotic injuries","volume":"37","author":"Kocadal","year":"2016","journal-title":"Foot Ankle Int"},{"issue":"6","key":"r24-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"620","DOI":"10.1053\/j.jfas.2009.07.013","article-title":"Transosseous fixation of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: comparison of an interosseous suture and endobutton to traditional screw fixation in 50 cases","volume":"48","author":"Cottom","year":"2009","journal-title":"J Foot Ankle Surg"},{"issue":"1","key":"r25-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"65","DOI":"10.1053\/j.jfas.2017.08.007","article-title":"Novel elastic syndesmosis hook plate fixation versus routine screw fixation for syndesmosis injury","volume":"57","author":"Xian","year":"2018","journal-title":"J Foot Ankle Surg"},{"issue":"4","key":"r26-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1322","DOI":"10.17554\/j.issn.2311-5106.2020.07.363","article-title":"A prospective randomized investigation comparing functional outcomes of syndesmotic suture-button fixation to screws","volume":"7","author":"Giza","year":"2020","journal-title":"Int J Orthopaedics"},{"issue":"1","key":"r28-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"269","DOI":"10.1186\/s13018-023-03579-x","article-title":"A new type of elastic fixation, using an encircling and binding technique, for tibiofibular syndesmosis stabilization: comparison to traditional cortical screw fixation","volume":"18","author":"Zhu","year":"2023","journal-title":"J Orthop Surg Res"},{"issue":"34","key":"r29-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e21573","DOI":"10.1097\/MD.0000000000021573","article-title":"Comparison of tendon suture fixation and cortical screw fixation for treatment of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: a case-control study","volume":"99","author":"Song","year":"2020","journal-title":"Medicine (Baltimore)"},{"issue":"12","key":"r30-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2828","DOI":"10.1177\/0363546512461480","article-title":"Fixation of ankle syndesmotic injuries: comparison of tightrope fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy of syndesmotic reduction","volume":"40","author":"Naqvi","year":"2012","journal-title":"Am J Sports Med"},{"issue":"4","key":"r31-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1000","DOI":"10.1177\/0363546519849909","article-title":"Dynamic stabilization of syndesmosis injuries reduces complications and reoperations as compared with screw fixation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","volume":"48","author":"Grassi","year":"2020","journal-title":"Am J Sports Med"},{"key":"r32-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"120","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijsu.2018.11.007","article-title":"Comparison of suture button fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation in the treatment of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"60","author":"Xie","year":"2018","journal-title":"Int J Surg"},{"issue":"5-6","key":"r33-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"379","DOI":"10.1007\/s00276-003-0156-4","article-title":"Anatomy of the tibiofibular syndesmosis and its clinical relevance","volume":"25","author":"Barton\u00edcek","year":"2003","journal-title":"Surg Radiol Anat"},{"issue":"6","key":"r34-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"601","DOI":"10.1007\/s00068-014-0466-8","article-title":"An update on the evaluation and treatment of syndesmotic injuries","volume":"41","author":"Rammelt","year":"2015","journal-title":"Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg"},{"key":"r35-20240731","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1007\/s11845-024-03619-3","article-title":"Syndesmotic injury with ankle fracture: a systematic review of screw vs dynamic fixation","author":"Murphy","year":"2024","journal-title":"Ir J Med Sci"}],"container-title":["JBJS Reviews"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.2106\/JBJS.RVW.24.00031","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,26]],"date-time":"2026-08-26T13:43:06Z","timestamp":1787751786000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.2106\/JBJS.RVW.24.00031"}},"subtitle":["A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Comparison Studies"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2024,5]]},"references-count":33,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.2106\/jbjs.rvw.24.00031","relation":{},"ISSN":["2329-9185"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2329-9185","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2024,5]]}}}