Anatomic Repair vs Closed Reduction of the Syndesmosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The goal of the study was to compare radiographic and functional outcomes between conventional closed syndesmotic reduction and screw fixation with open reduction, direct repair of the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament (AiTFL) and screw fixation. We hypothesized that open reduction with restoration of the AiTFL would provide an improved reduction with better radiographic and functional outcomes. Methods: Fifty consecutive patients with OTA 44-C ankle fractures were enrolled. Treatment was nonrandomized and based on surgeon preference. Patients were treated with either open reduction, suture-anchor AiTFL repair, and screw fixation (ART group), or conventional closed reduction of the syndesmosis followed by screw fixation (CR group). The primary outcome measure was anteroposterior (AP) displacement of the fibula on CT scan at 3 months postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures included the Maryland Foot Score, the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle Hindfoot Score, and the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS). Results: Mean AP difference between injured and noninjured ankles was decreased in the ART group compared with the CR group (0.7 ± 0.3 mm vs 1.5 ± 0.3 mm, P = .008). No differences were observed between groups in overall scores for secondary outcome measures. The ART group displayed a significant difference in Maryland Foot Shoe subscore at 12 months (ART = 9.5 vs CR = 8.3, P = .03) and FAOS Quality of Life subscore at 12 months (64.1 compared to 38.3, P = .04). Conclusion: Open anatomic syndesmotic repair resulted in improved radiographic outcomes compared with closed reduction. Cosmesis was worse at 6 weeks compared to the CR group; however, quality of life and shoewear were improved in the ART group at 1 year postoperatively. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective comparative study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".