A systematic review of suture-button versus syndesmotic screw in the treatment of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury

BACKGROUND: Now, using a suture-button device to treat distal tibiofibular syndesmotic injuries is overwhelming due to its advantages over screw fixation. Current systematic review was conducted to make a comparison between suture-button fixation and traditionally screw fixation in the treatment of syndesmotic injuries. The outcomes included functional outcomes, implant removal, implant failure, malreduction, post-operative complications (except implant failure and malreduction), and cost-effectiveness aspects. METHOD: A literature search in the electronic databases of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science was conducted to identify studies until March 2017. The references of the included articles were also checked for potentially relevant studies. Only English articles were included. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematics reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines in this review. RESULTS: Finally, 10 studies were identified, encompassing a total of 390 patients. The mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle score (AOFAS) score of 150 patients treated with the suture-button device was 91.06 points, with an average follow-up of 17.58 months, and the mean AOFAS score of 150 patients treated with syndesmotic screws was 87.78 points, with an average follow-up of 17.73 months. Implant removal was reported in 5 of 134 (3.7%) patients treated with the suture-button device, and in 54 of 134 (40.2%) patients treated with the syndesmotic screw. No patient in the suture-button fixation group had implant failure, however the rate of implant failure in the screw fixation group was 30.9%. Malreduction was reported in 1 of 93 (1.0%) patients treated with the suture-button device, and in 12 of 95 (12.6%) patients treated with the syndesmotic screw. The rate of post-operative complications in the suture-button fixation group was 12.0% and 16.4% in the screw fixation group. There was only one publication demonstrated about cost-effectiveness aspects, it showed that patients treated with the suture-button device spent on average $1482 less and had a higher quality of life by 0.058 quality-adjusted life-year compared with patients who received fixation with 2 syndesmotic screws in supination-external rotation type 4 injuries. CONCLUSION: Based on our research, though the suture-button fixation group had similar functional outcome (measured on the AOFAS score) and post-operative complication rate compared with the syndesmotic screw fixation group, the suture-button device could lead to better objective range of motion (ROM) measurements and earlier return to work. Besides, the suture-button fixation group had lower rate of implant removal, implant failure, and malreduction. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials with more uniformity in outcome reporting are desirable to determine the long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of the suture-button device.