Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Trauma

Removal of the syndesmotic screw after the surgical treatment of a fracture of the ankle in adult patients does not affect one-year outcomes

a randomised controlled trial



Download PDF

Abstract

Our aim was to compare the one-year post-operative outcomes following retention or removal of syndesmotic screws in adult patients with a fracture of the ankle that was treated surgically. A total of 51 patients (35 males, 16 females), with a mean age of 33.5 years (16 to 62), undergoing fibular osteosynthesis and syndesmotic screw fixation, were randomly allocated to retention of the syndesmotic screw or removal at three months post-operatively. The two groups were comparable at baseline.

One year post-operatively, there was no significant difference in the mean Olerud–Molander ankle score (82.4 retention vs 86.7 removal, p = 0.367), the mean American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score (88.6 vs 90.1, p = 0.688), the mean American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons foot and ankle score (96.3 vs 94.0, p = 0.250), the mean visual analogue pain score (1.0 vs 0.7, p = 0.237), the mean active dorsiflexion (10.2° vs 13.0°, p = 0.194) and plantar flexion (33.6° vs 31.3°, p = 0.503) of the ankle, or the mean radiological tibiofibular clear space (5.0 mm vs 5.3 mm, p = 0.276) between the two groups. A total of 19 patients (76%) in the retention group had a loose and/or broken screw one year post-operatively.

We conclude that removal of a syndesmotic screw produces no significant functional, clinical or radiological benefit in adult patients who are treated surgically for a fracture of the ankle.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1699–1705.


Correspondence should be sent to Mr M. J. Boyle; e-mail:

For access options please click here