Dynamic Fixation versus Static Fixation in Treatment Effectiveness and Safety for Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmosis Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

To compare the effectiveness and safety of dynamic fixation (DF) and static fixation (SF) in distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries (DTSI) by a system review and meta‐analysis. PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE were systematically searched by computer to select clinical randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort trials comparing DF and SF in treating patients with DTSI. RCT and cohort trials comparing DF and SF for patients with DTSI were included. Inclusion criteria: (i) prospective or retrospective study of patients with DTSI; (ii) patients were diagnosed as having DTSI by imageology and only received DF treatment or SF treatment; (iii) the study compared DF and SF in DTSI; and (iv) one or more of the following outcomes were reported: ankle joint functional score, surgical complications, malreduction of syndesmosis, and second operations. Exclusion criteria: (i) non‐human studies; (ii) DTSI patients accompanied with other complications or other joints injuries; and (iii) full text unavailable. RevMan V5.3 software was used to perform the statistical analysis. Outcomes analyzed by Revman software showed that there were no statistically significant differences between DF and SF in the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle–hindfoot score (MD, 1.90; 95% CI, −0.23 to 4.03; P = 0.08; I (2) = 0%), Olerud–Molander (OM) score (MD, 1.92; 95% CI, −7.96 to 11.81; P = 0.70; I (2) = 55%), incidence of syndesmotic malreduction (RR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.03 to 1.09; P = 0.06; I (2) = 0%), and overall postoperative complication rate (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.99; P = 0.05, I (2) = 75%) and the rate of second procedure was significantly lower with DF (RR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.43; P = 0.0002, I (2) = 54%). Compared to SF, DF has an advantage, with a low rate of second procedures to treat DTSI.