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. Results. The median OMAS score was 85.0 for patients treated with RR, and 90.0 for patients treated with ODR (p = 0.384), indicating no significant difference between ODR and RR. The secondary outcome measures included the AOFAS (88.0 in the RR group and 90.0 for ODR; p = 0.722), FAOS (87.5 in the RR group and 92.9 for ODR; p = 0.399), and EQ-5D (0.87 in the RR group and 0.96 for ODR; p = 0.092). Conclusion. This study demonstrated no functional difference comparing ODR to RR in syndesmotic injuries at a four year follow-up period, which supports the results of the primary RODEO trial. ODR should be the standard practice after syndesmotic screw fixation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):957–963

Aims

The ideal management of acute syndesmotic injuries in elite athletes is controversial. Among several treatment methods used to stabilize the syndesmosis and facilitate healing of the ligaments, the use of suture tape (InternalBrace) has previously been described. The purpose of this study was to analyze the functional outcome, including American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, knee-to-wall measurements, and the time to return to play in days, of unstable syndesmotic injuries treated with the use of the InternalBrace in elite athletes.

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate whether on-demand removal (ODR) is noninferior to routine removal (RR) of syndesmotic screws regarding functional outcome. Methods. Adult patients (aged above 17 years) with traumatic syndesmotic injury, surgically treated within 14 days of trauma using one or two syndesmotic screws, were eligible (n = 490) for inclusion in this randomized controlled noninferiority trial. A total of 197 patients were randomized for either ODR (retaining the syndesmotic screw unless there were complaints warranting removal) or RR (screw removed at eight to 12 weeks after syndesmotic fixation), of whom 152 completed the study. The primary outcome was functional outcome at 12 months after screw placement, measured by the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS). Results. There were 152 patients included in final analysis (RR = 73; ODR = 79). Of these, 59.2% were male (n = 90), and the mean age was 46.9 years (SD 14.6). Median OMAS at 12 months after syndesmotic fixation was 85 (interquartile range (IQR) 60 to 95) for RR and 80 (IQR 65 to 100) for ODR. The noninferiority test indicated that the observed effect size was significantly within the equivalent bounds of -10 and 10 scale points (p < 0.001) for both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol, meaning that ODR was not inferior to RR. There were significantly more complications in the RR group (12/73) than in the ODR group (1/79) (p = 0.007). Conclusion. ODR of the syndesmotic screw is not inferior to routine removal when it comes to functional outcome. Combined with the high complication rate of screw removal, this offers a strong argument to adopt on demand removal as standard practice of care after syndesmotic screw fixation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(11):1709–1716

Aims. In approximately 20% of patients with ankle fractures, there is an concomitant injury to the syndesmosis which requires stabilisation, usually with one or more syndesmotic screws. The aim of this review is to evaluate whether removal of the syndesmotic screw is required in order for the patient to obtain optimal functional recovery. Materials and Methods. A literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles in which the syndesmotic screw was retained. Articles describing both removal and retaining of syndesmotic screws were included. Excluded were biomechanical studies, studies not providing patient related outcome measures, case reports, studies on skeletally immature patients and reviews. No restrictions regarding year of publication and language were applied. Results. A total of 329 studies were identified, of which nine were of interest, and another two articles were added after screening the references. In all, two randomised controlled trials (RCT) and nine case-control series were found. The two RCTs found no difference in functional outcome between routine removal and retaining the syndesmotic screw. All but one of the case-control series found equal or better outcomes when the syndesmotic screw was retained. However, all included studies had substantial methodological flaws. Conclusions. The currently available literature does not support routine elective removal of syndesmotic screws. However, the literature is of insufficient quality to be able to draw definitive conclusions. Secondary procedures incur a provider and institutional cost and expose the patient to the risk of complications. Therefore, in the absence of high quality evidence there appears to be little justification for routine removal of syndesmotic screws. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1497–1504