Incidence and predictors of syndesmotic injuries in ankle fractures: a cross-sectional study correlating radiographic assessment with intraoperative findings

Sumit M. Saidapure; Gururaj Joshi; Gopal Pundkare

doi:10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20251797

Authors

Sumit M. Saidapure Department of Orthopedics, Bharati Vidyapeeth University, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Gururaj Joshi Department of Orthopedics, Bharati Vidyapeeth University, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Gopal Pundkare Department of Orthopedics, Bharati Vidyapeeth University, Pune, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20251797

Keywords:

Ankle fractures, Syndesmotic injuries, Tibiofibular syndesmosis, Radiographic assessment, Intraoperative diagnosis, Hook test, Lauge-Hansen classification

Abstract

Background: Syndesmotic injuries are clinically significant ankle injuries that may lead to chronic instability and functional impairment when inadequately managed. While literature suggests these injuries occur in 10-20% of ankle fractures, their true incidence remains poorly characterized. This study aimed to determine the incidence of syndesmotic injuries in ankle fractures and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of radiographic assessment compared to intraoperative findings.

Methods: This 18-month cross-sectional study conducted at a tertiary care center in Pune, India included 49 patients with ankle fractures requiring surgical intervention. Standardized radiographic evaluation was performed to assess syndesmotic parameters (tibiofibular clear space, tibiofibular overlap, and medial clear space). Fractures were classified using the Lauge-Hansen system, and intraoperative assessment was conducted using the Hook test as the reference standard. Statistical analysis included calculation of diagnostic accuracy metrics and multivariate logistic regression to identify independent predictors of syndesmotic injuries.

Results: Syndesmotic injuries were identified in 16 patients (32.7%, 95% CI: 19.9%-47.0%), with highest prevalence in Pronation-External Rotation fractures (46.7%) and those resulting from road traffic accidents (44.4%). Radiographic assessment demonstrated good diagnostic performance (sensitivity 87.5%, specificity 81.8%) compared to intraoperative findings. Multivariate analysis identified three independent predictors of syndesmotic injury: Pronation-External Rotation fracture pattern (OR 3.82, p=0.006), road traffic accident mechanism (OR 2.96, p=0.026), and tibiofibular clear space >6 mm (OR 8.35, p<0.001). Patients with syndesmotic injuries demonstrated significantly worse immediate post-operative pain scores (p<0.001) and functional outcomes (p<0.001).

Conclusions: Syndesmotic injuries are more common in ankle fractures than previously reported, particularly in high-energy trauma and specific fracture patterns. While systematic radiographic evaluation provides valuable diagnostic information, intraoperative assessment remains essential for definitive diagnosis. These findings emphasize the importance of maintaining a high index of suspicion for syndesmotic injuries in high-risk scenarios to optimize patient outcomes.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Daly PJ, Fitzgerald RH Jr, Melton LJ, Ilstrup DM. Epidemiology of ankle fractures in Rochester, Minnesota. Acta Orthop Scand. 1987;58(5):539-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678709146395

Court-Brown CM, Caesar B. Epidemiology of adult fractures: A review. Injury. 2006;37(8):691-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2006.04.130

Hunt KJ, Phisitkul P, Pirolo J, Amendola A. High ankle sprains and syndesmotic injuries in athletes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015;23(11):661-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-13-00135

Nussbaum ED, Hosea TM, Sieler SD, Incremona BR, Kessler DE. Prospective evaluation of syndesmotic ankle sprains without diastasis. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(1):31-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465010290011001

Hermans JJ, Beumer A, de Jong TA, Kleinrensink GJ. Anatomy of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis in adults: a pictorial essay with a multimodality approach. J Anat. 2010;217(6):633-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2010.01302.x

Zalavras C, Thordarson D. Ankle syndesmotic injury. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(6):330-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200706000-00002

Schnetzke M, Vetter SY, Beisemann N, Swartman B, Grützner PA, Franke J. Management of syndesmotic injuries: What is the evidence? World J Orthop. 2016;7(11):718-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v7.i11.718

Harper MC, Keller TS. A radiographic evaluation of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 1989;10(3):156-60.

Nielson JH, Gardner MJ, Peterson MG. Radiographic measurements do not predict syndesmotic injury in ankle fractures: an MRI study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;(436):216-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000161090.86162.19

van den Bekerom MP, Lamme B, Hogervorst M, Bolhuis HW. Which ankle fractures require syndesmotic stabilization? J Foot Ankle Surg. 2007;46(6):456-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2007.08.009

World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053

Michelson JD. Fractures about the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(1):142-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199501000-00020

Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(S11):S240-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20543

Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22(10):788-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070102201004

Alonso A, Khoury L, Adams R. Clinical tests for ankle syndesmosis injury: Reliability and prediction of return to function. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;27(4):276-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1998.27.4.276

Lauge-Hansen N. Fractures of the ankle. II. Combined experimental-surgical and experimental-roentgenologic investigations. Arch Surg. 1950;60(5):957-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1950.01250010980011

Pettrone FA, Gail M, Pee D, Fitzpatrick T, Van Herpe LB. Quantitative criteria for prediction of the results after displaced fracture of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65(5):667-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198365050-00013

Harper MC. An anatomic study of the short oblique fracture of the distal fibula and ankle stability. Foot Ankle. 1983;4(1):23-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107110078300400106

Leeds HC, Ehrlich MG. Instability of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis after bimalleolar and trimalleolar ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(4):490-503. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198466040-00002

Jenkinson RJ, Sanders DW, Macleod MD, Domonkos A, Lydestadt J. Intraoperative diagnosis of syndesmosis injuries in external rotation ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(9):604-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bot.0000177114.13263.12

Pakarinen H, Flinkkilä T, Ohtonen P. Intraoperative assessment of the stability of the distal tibiofibular joint in supination-external rotation injuries of the ankle: Sensitivity, specificity, and reliability of two clinical tests. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(22):2057-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01287

Ogilvie-Harris DJ, Reed SC, Hedman TP. Disruption of the ankle syndesmosis: Biomechanical study of the ligamentous restraints. Arthroscopy. 1994;10(5):558-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-8063(05)80014-3

Schepers T. Acute distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: A systematic review of suture-button versus syndesmotic screw repair. Int Orthop. 2012;36(6):1199-206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1500-2

Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

Altman DG, Bland JM. Diagnostic tests. 1: Sensitivity and specificity. BMJ. 1994;308(6943):1552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6943.1552

Donken CC, Al-Khateeb H, Verhofstad MH, van Laarhoven CJ. Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating ankle fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(8):CD008470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008470.pub2

Rammelt S, Zwipp H, Grass R. Injuries to the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: an evidence-based approach to acute and chronic lesions. Foot Ankle Clin. 2008;13(4):611-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcl.2008.08.001

Stark E, Tornetta P 3rd, Creevy WR. Syndesmotic instability in Weber B ankle fractures: A clinical evaluation. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(9):643-6.

Kennedy JG, Johnson SM, Collins AL. An evaluation of the Weber classification of ankle fractures. Injury. 1998;29(8):577-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1383(98)00116-8

Xenos JS, Hopkinson WJ, Mulligan ME, Olson EJ, Popovic NA. The tibiofibular syndesmosis: Evaluation of the ligamentous structures, methods of fixation, and radiographic assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(6):847-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199506000-00005

Boden SD, Labropoulos PA, McCowin P, Lestini WF, Hurwitz SR. Mechanical considerations for the syndesmosis screw: A cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(10):1548-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-198971100-00014

Ebraheim NA, Lu J, Yang H, Mekhail AO, Yeasting RA. Radiographic and CT evaluation of tibiofibular syndesmotic diastasis: A cadaver study. Foot Ankle Int. 1997;18(11):693-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079701801103

Tornetta P 3rd, Axelrad TW, Sibai T, Creevy WR. Treatment of the stress positive ligamentous SE4 ankle fracture: Incidence of syndesmotic injury and clinical decision making. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(11):659-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e31825cf39c

Norkus SA, Floyd RT. The anatomy and mechanisms of syndesmotic ankle sprains. J Athl Train. 2001;36(1):68-73.

Weening B, Bhandari M. Predictors of functional outcome following transsyndesmotic screw fixation of ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(2):102-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005131-200502000-00006

Stark E, Tornetta P 3rd, Creevy WR. Syndesmotic instability in Weber B ankle fractures: A clinical evaluation. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(9):643-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e318157a63a

Harper MC, Keller TS. A radiographic evaluation of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle. 1989;10(3):156-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107110078901000308

Pneumaticos SG, Noble PC, Chatziioannou SN, Trevino SG. The effects of rotation on radiographic evaluation of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 2002;23(2):107-11.

Pneumaticos SG, Noble PC, Chatziioannou SN, Trevino SG. The effects of rotation on radiographic evaluation of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 2002;23(2):107-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070202300205

Beumer A, van Hemert WL, Niesing R. Radiographic measurement of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis has limited use. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(423):227-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000129152.81015.ad