There have been few reports with efficient treatments for neglected distal tibiofibular syndesmosis disruption. Here we will report four cases of successful anatomical reconstruction with autologous gracilis tendon, using the interference fit anchoring (IFA) system. All four cases were males between 20 and 58 years of age at the time of surgery (mean age 36 years). The post-injury period to surgery was between 7 and 59 months (mean 20.1 months), with the consultation period being from 5 to 19 months (mean 9.5 months). Radiographs at the time of injuries were all malleolar fractures of pronation-external rotation (PE) stage 3 in the Lauge-Hansen classification. Stress tests for distal tibiofibular syndesmosis were positive in all cases (dilation more than 2 mm). Arthroscopic drilling was conducted in two cases with a cartilaginous injury of trochlea of talus. Distal tibiofibular syndesmosis was anatomically repositioned and was fixed with screws after bony and soft tissues within the tibiofibular syndesmosis were removed and fibular adhesion was dissected. Ipsilateral autologous gracilis tendon was passed through foramen in the insertion of the anterior inferior tibiofibular tendon on tibia and fibula, and was fixated using the IFA system. The preoperative Japanese society for surgery of the foot (JSSF) score was from 26 to 74 points (mean 43.5) and postoperative JSSF score was from 67 to 100 (mean 89.5). In a case where there was a poor outcome, five years of post injury had passed before the surgery. Although the JSSF score improved to 67 points postoperatively (from the preoperative score of 26) in this case, arthroscopic arthrodesis was conducted 5 months postoperatively due to persistent pain. Anatomical reconstruction with autologous gracilis tendon using the IFA system showed a favorable functional prognosis overall. However, there was a case with progressive degenerated changes of injured distal tibiofibular syndesmosis due to a prolonged post-injury period resulted in a poor outcome

Introduction. It is recommended that the ankle be held in dorsiflexion at the time of placement of syndesmosis screw. We assessed the validity of this recommendation. Materials and methods. A two-part roentgenographic and computerised analysis of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. The first part involved recruitment of 30 healthy adult volunteers. The second part involved 15 ankle fractures with syndesmotic injury requiring syndesmosis screw placement. In the first part individuals maximally dorsiflexed and plantarflexed their ankles in a specialised jig for standardisation. Mortice views were taken and intermalleolar distance measured. In the second part mortice views were taken in plantarflexion and dorsiflexion before and after the placement of syndesmosis screw in theatre. The intermalleolar distance was then measured. Results. In both parts of the study we found the change in intermalleolar distance between the positions of plantarflexion and dorsiflexion was not more than 0.9 mm. This change is significantly less than the calculated difference between the anterior and posterior talar body width of 3-5 mm. Conclusion. This study shows that the width of ankle mortice is independent of the position of the talus occupying it and hence dorsiflexion of the ankle at the time of syndesmosis screw placement is totally unwarranted