Syndesmosis Fixation Using Dual Screws with Tricortical and Quadricortical Purchase
Da-wei Chen,Bing Li,Yun-feng Yang,Guang-rong Yu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100713499907
IF: 3.569
2013-01-01
Foot & Ankle International
Abstract:Dear Editor: We read with great interest your recent publication of the article by Markolf et al. In their study, they measured the distal fibular forces and displacements under different biomechanical circumstances and concluded that screw size and number of engaged tibial cortices had no significant effect on mechanical stability of the distal fibula. They performed a good study. However, there are some concerns regarding this study. First, in the introduction of their article, the authors stated that syndesmotic screw fixation provides the best anatomical reduction, shortens the healing period, and allows patients to resume weight-bearing more quickly. We don’t think this is a rigorous statement. A recent study from Naqvi et al showed that fixation with TightRope provides a more accurate method of syndesmotic stabilization compared with screw fixation. In their study, 21.7% of the ankles in the syndesmotic screw fixation group had malreduction, whereas none of the TightRope group showed malreduction. Besides, although there was no statistical significance, patients in the TightRope group bore weight much earlier. Second, in their testing, the authors used two screws to fix the syndesmosis after the anterior and posterior inferior tibiofibular ligaments and the interosseous ligament were sectioned, while the interosseous membrane was preserved. As is known, two-screw fixation was usually used to deal with severe syndesmotic injuries resulted from pronation-external rotation (Weber C) injuries, especially for Maisonneuve’s fractures. On the basis of the injury mechanism, the interosseous membrane was usually torn in a Weber C injury. However, in their syndesmotic injury model, the authors kept the interosseous membrane intact. In agreement with other authors, we think that the interosseous membrane could prevent the syndesmosis separating. To some extent, this might be one reason for their result that no significant medial-lateral displacement of the distal fibula was found in the authors’ testing. Third, we would like to know whether the length of the screws would affect the results. For different specimens, the fibular and tibial diameter and the width of the interosseous membrane might be different. Therefore, the screws with different sizes could have been utilized. In addition, the authors stated that the exact penetration depth of the tricortical screws into the tibia varied slightly and the tip of the tricortical screw penetrated to within 1.0 cm of the medial tibial cortex. We would like to know how they identified the penetration depth of the tricortical screws. We speculate that a shallow penetration might lead to a more posterior displacement of distal fibula, while a deep penetration might result in a less posterior displacement of the distal fibula.