Comparison of Outcomes Between Suture Button Technique and Screw Fixation Technique in Patients With Acute Syndesmotic Diastasis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author:

Ramadanov Nikolai12ORCID,Bueschges Simon3,Dimitrov Dobromir4

Affiliation:

1. Department of Emergency Medicine, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Thüringen, Germany

2. Center of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Brandenburg an der Havel, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Germany

3. Department of Statistics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain

4. Department of Surgical Propaedeutics, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Pleven, Pleven, Bulgaria

Abstract

Background: Our aim was to compare the outcome between suture button (SB) stabilization and syndesmotic screw fixation (SF) in patients with acute syndesmotic diastasis. Methods: A systematic literature search up to June 30, 2021, was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of SB with SF techniques in patients with acute syndesmotic diastasis. We calculated mean differences for continuous outcomes, using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method, and odds ratio for dichotomous outcomes, using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Results: Eight RCTs involving 569 patients met the inclusion criteria, 1 RCT with level I evidence, and 7 RCTs with level II evidence. The meta-analysis showed that the SB technique had a higher AOFAS score <6 months and 12 months postoperatively (MD = 4.74, 95% CI 1.68-7.80, P = .01; and MD = 5.42, 95% CI 1.50-9.33, P = .02) and reduced the risk of implant irritation (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.89, P = .03), implant failure (OR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.02-0.23, P < .01), and reoperation (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.22-0.83, P = .01). The 2 approaches did not differ in further functional outcomes or postoperative complications. Conclusion: Because functional outcomes showed no relevant difference between both SB and SF, the advantage of SB appears to be in the lower risk for postoperative complications. The SB technique led to fewer cases of implant irritation, implant failure, and reoperation compared with SF. Level of Evidence: Level I, meta-analysis of RCTs.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Reference47 articles.

1. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Levels of evidence (March 2009). Accessed July 8, 2011. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3