Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 4, Issue 12 | Pages 957 - 963
18 Dec 2023
van den Heuvel S Penning D Sanders F van Veen R Sosef N van Dijkman B Schepers T

Aims

The primary aim of this study was to present the mid-term follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) which compared the functional outcome following routine removal (RR) to the outcome following on-demand removal (ODR) of the syndesmotic screw (SS).

Methods

All patients included in the ‘ROutine vs on DEmand removal Of the syndesmotic screw’ (RODEO) trial received the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Hindfoot Score (AOFAS), Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D). Out of the 152 patients, 109 (71.7%) completed the mid-term follow-up questionnaire and were included in this study (53 treated with RR and 56 with ODR). Median follow-up was 50 months (interquartile range 43.0 to 56.0) since the initial surgical treatment of the acute syndesmotic injury. The primary outcome of this study consisted of the OMAS scores of the two groups.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 7 | Pages 503 - 508
8 Jul 2021
Callaghan CJ McKinley JC

Aims

Arthroplasty has become increasingly popular to treat end-stage ankle arthritis. Iatrogenic posterior neurovascular and tendinous injury have been described from saw cuts. However, it is hypothesized that posterior ankle structures could be damaged by inserting tibial guide pins too deeply and be a potential cause of residual hindfoot pain.

Methods

The preparation steps for ankle arthroplasty were performed using the Infinity total ankle system in five right-sided cadaveric ankles. All tibial guide pins were intentionally inserted past the posterior tibial cortex for assessment. All posterior ankles were subsequently dissected, with the primary endpoint being the presence of direct contact between the structure and pin.