Meta-analysis of elastic versus rigid fixation in the treatment of acute tibiofibular syndesmosis injury

Abstract

Abstract Objective The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis by synthesizing multiple literature sources to explore whether there are any differences between elastic fixation and rigid fixation in the treatment of acute tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries. The aim was to provide effective guidance for clinical treatment. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search across seven databases, including both Chinese and English, to include all studies related to the treatment of acute tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries with elastic fixation and rigid fixation published between January 1, 2013, and November 15, 2022. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we rigorously screened, assessed, and extracted data from the included studies. The outcome measures included AOFAS scores at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively; tibiofibular clear space (TBCS) and tibiofibular overlap distance (TBOL) at the early postoperative and 12-month follow-up; intraoperative blood loss; operative time; time to full weight-bearing postoperatively; and postoperative complications. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4. Results A total of 35 studies were included, comprising 16 randomized controlled trials and 19 retrospective cohort studies. The study population included 2120 cases, with 1044 cases in the elastic fixation group and 1076 cases in the rigid fixation group. The elastic fixation group had higher AOFAS scores at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively compared to the rigid fixation group. Although the elastic fixation group had a slightly larger TBCS than the rigid fixation group in the early postoperative period, the difference between the two groups became statistically insignificant at 12 months postoperatively. There was no statistically significant difference in TBOL between the two groups in the early postoperative period, but at 12 months, the elastic fixation group had a greater TBOL than the rigid fixation group. Additionally, the elastic fixation group had lower rates of postoperative local irritation, wound infection, and postoperative internal fixation loosening or rupture compared to the rigid fixation group. The rate of postoperative tibiofibular redislocation did not differ statistically between the two groups. The time to full weight-bearing was shorter in the elastic fixation group than in the rigid fixation group. Although the elastic fixation group had a slightly longer operative time, there was no statistically significant difference in intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. Conclusion Compared to rigid fixation, elastic fixation in the treatment of acute tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries offers several advantages, including better postoperative ankle joint function recovery, more precise anatomical reduction of the syndesmosis postoperatively, a lower incidence of postoperative complications, and shorter time to full weight-bearing postoperatively. These findings provide robust guidance for clinical treatment.