Evaluation of the Syndesmotic Screw in Low Weber C Ankle Fractures : Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma

Journal Logo

Original Articles

Evaluation of the Syndesmotic Screw in Low Weber C Ankle Fractures

Kennedy, J. G.; Soffe, K. E.; Vedova, P. Dalla; Stephens, M. M.; O'Brien, T.; Walsh, M. G.; McManus, F.

Author Information
Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 14(5):p 359-366, June 2000.

Abstract

Objective: 

To determine the functional and radiographic outcome of low Weber C ankle fractures and to evaluate the contribution of the syndesmotic screw in their outcome.

Design: 

Prospective evaluation of a consecutive series.

Setting: 

Level I trauma center.

Patients: 

Forty-five patients divided into two groups matched for age, sex, and severity of injury. Twenty-six patients were treated with open reduction, internal fixation, and a supplemental syndesmotic screw, and nineteen patients were treated without a syndesmotic screw. Minimum time to follow-up was three years.

Methods: 

A subjective, objective, and radiographic ankle scoring system was used. Logistical regression analysis was performed to determine whether the presence or absence of a syndesmotic screw was a predictor of a poor outcome. The likelihood ratio test was used to evaluate the significance of each variable in both univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results: 

There was no statistically significant difference between either group, either using subjective outcome criteria (p = 0.86) or in ankle range of motion (p = 0.94). Logistical regression analysis indicated that fracture dislocation could be used as a predictor of a poor outcome for either group. Inadequate reduction and advancing age were also found to be significant predictors of a poorer outcome regardless of the use of a syndesmotic screw (p = 0.003, p = 0.004).

Conclusions: 

Judicious fixation of Weber C type injuries within five centimeters of the ankle joint, with or without a syndesmotic screw, gives similar results. Obligatory fixation of these fractures with syndesmotic screws appears to have no benefit and creates the need for an additional procedure.

© 2000 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Full Text Access for Subscribers:

You can read the full text of this article if you:

Access through Ovid