Arthroscopic-Assisted Versus All-Arthroscopic Ankle Stabilization Technique

Author:

Guelfi Matteo123ORCID,Nunes Gustavo Araujo456,Malagelada Francesc7,Cordier Guillaume68,Dalmau-Pastor Miki56ORCID,Vega Jordi569

Affiliation:

1. Casa di Cura Villa Montallegro, Genoa, Italy

2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery “Gruppo Policlinico di Monza,” Clinica Salus, Alessandria, Italy

3. Human Anatomy and Embryology Unit, Department of Morphological Sciences, Universitad Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

4. Hospital Belo Horizonte, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil

5. Human Anatomy and Embryology Unit, Department of Pathology and Experimental Therapeutics, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

6. GRECMIP (Groupe de Recherche et d’Etude en Chirurgie Mini-Invasive du Pied) Soon MIFAS (Minimally Invasive Foot and Ankle Society), Merignac, France

7. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK

8. Orthopaedic Department, Mérignac Sports Clinic, Mérignac, France

9. Foot and Ankle Unit, Orthopedic Department, iMove Tres Torres, Barcelona, Spain

Abstract

Background: Both the percutaneous technique with arthroscopic assistance, also known as arthroscopic Broström (AB), and the arthroscopic all-inside ligament repair (AI) are widely used to treat chronic lateral ankle instability. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of these 2 arthroscopic stabilizing techniques. Methods: Thirty-nine consecutive patients were arthroscopically treated for chronic ankle instability by 2 different surgeons. The AB group comprised 20 patients with a mean age of 30.2 (range, 18-42) years and a mean follow-up of 19.6 (range, 12-28) months. The AI group comprised 19 patients with a mean age of 30.9 (range, 18-46) years and mean follow-up of 20.7 (range, 13-32) months. Functional outcomes using the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) hindfoot score and visual analog pain scale (VAS) were assessed pre- and postoperatively. Range of motion (ROM) and complications were recorded. Results: In both groups the AOFAS and VAS scores significantly improved compared with preoperative values ( P < .001) with no difference ( P > .1) between groups. In the AB group the mean AOFAS score improved from 67 (range, 44-87) to 92 (range, 76-100) and the mean VAS score from 6.4 (range, 3-10) to 1.2 (range, 0-3). In the AI group the mean AOFAS score changed from 60 (range, 32-87) to 93 (range, 76-100) and the mean VAS score from 6.1 (range, 4-10) to 0.8 (range, 0-3). At the final follow-up 8 complications (40%) were recorded in the AB group. In the AI group 1 complication (5.3%) was observed ( P < .05). Conclusion: Both the AB and AI techniques are suitable surgical options to treat chronic ankle instability providing excellent clinical results. However, the AB had a higher overall complication rate than the AI group, particularly involving a painful restriction of ankle plantarflexion and neuritis of the superficial peroneal nerve. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery

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