Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 94–103 | Cite as

Current trends in the diagnosis and management of syndesmotic injury

  • Matthew L. Vopat
  • Bryan G. Vopat
  • Bart Lubberts
  • Christopher W. DiGiovanni
Foot and Ankle Sports Medicine (M Drakos, section editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Foot and Ankle Sports Medicine


Ideal management of the various presentations of syndesmotic injury remains controversial to this day. High quality evidentiary science on this topic is rare, and numerous existing studies continue to contradict one another. The primary reasons for these discrepancies are that previous studies have failed to (1) properly distinguish between isolated (non-fractured) and non-isolated injuries, (2) accurately define stable from unstable injuries, and (3) sufficiently differentiate between acute and chronic injuries. The purpose of this review is to summarize today’s body of literature regarding diagnosis and management of syndesmotic injury and discuss current trends and important future directions to optimize care of this very heterogeneous population.


Syndesmosis Syndesmotic injury Ankle fracture High ankle sprain 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Matthew L. Vopat, Bryan G. Vopat, and Bart Lubberts declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Christopher W. DiGiovanni reports stock options with Wright Medical, Paragon 28, and CreOsso. He is a consultant for Wright Medical and Extremity Medical. He also reports royalties from Extremity Medical.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Vosseller JT, Karl JW, Greisberg JK. Incidence of syndesmotic injury. Orthopedics. 2014;37(3):e226–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Porter DA, et al. Optimal management of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Open Access J Sports Med. 2014;5:173–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Switaj PJ, Mendoza M, Kadakia AR. Acute and chronic injuries to the syndesmosis. Clin Sports Med. 2015;34(4):643–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    • Hunt KJ, et al. High ankle sprains and syndesmotic injuries in athletes. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015;23(11):661–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mak MF, Gartner L, Pearce CJ. Management of syndesmosis injuries in the elite athlete. Foot Ankle Clin. 2013;18(2):195–214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCollum GA, et al. Syndesmosis and deltoid ligament injuries in the athlete. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(6):1328–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czajka CM, et al. Ankle sprains and instability. Med Clin North Am. 2014;98(2):313–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Symeonidis PD, et al. Common pitfalls in syndesmotic rupture management: a clinical audit. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34(3):345–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franke J, et al. Intraoperative three-dimensional imaging in the treatment of acute unstable syndesmotic injuries. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(15):1386–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cancienne JM, Crosen MP, Yarboro SR. Use of a hybrid operating room to improve reduction of syndesmotic injuries in ankle fractures: a case report. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tucker A, et al. Functional outcomes following syndesmotic fixation: a comparison of screws retained in situ versus routine removal—is it really necessary? Injury. 2013;44(12):1880–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roemer FW, et al. Ligamentous injuries and the risk of associated tissue damage in acute ankle sprains in athletes: a cross-sectional MRI study. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(7):1549–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gerber JP, et al. Persistent disability associated with ankle sprains: a prospective examination of an athletic population. Foot Ankle Int. 1998;19(10):653–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    • Lubberts B, van Dijk PAD, Donovan N. Stable and unstable grade II syndesmotic injuries require different treatment strategies and vary in fuctional outcomes: a systematic review. JISAKOS. 2016;1(3):1–6. An in-depth review of current recommendations on how to diagnosis and treat stable and unstable grade II syndesmotic injuries Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osbahr DC, et al. Syndesmosis and lateral ankle sprains in the National Football League. Orthopedics. 2013;36(11):e1378–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hunt KJ, et al. Epidemiology of syndesmosis injuries in intercollegiate football: incidence and risk factors from National Collegiate Athletic Association injury surveillance system data from 2004 to 2005 to 2008-2009. Clin J Sport Med. 2013;23(4):278–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaplan LD, et al. Incidence and variance of foot and ankle injuries in elite college football players. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2011;40(1):40–4.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lubberts B, van Dijk PAD, Calder JD, DiGiovanni CW. There is no best surgical treatment for chronic isolated syndesmotic instability: a systematic review. J ISAKOS. 2016;1(5).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    • Lilyquist M, et al. Cadaveric analysis of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 2016. Cadaveric study that evaluated the anatomy of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis and the incidence of a prominet tranverse ligament. They found the transverse ligament was only prominent 70% of the time . Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    • van Dijk CN, et al. Classification and diagnosis of acute isolated syndesmotic injuries: ESSKA-AFAS consensus and guidelines. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(4):1200–16. A literature review by ESSKA-AFAS where they described consensus guidelines for classification and diagnosis of acute isolated syndesmotic injuries CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Takao M, et al. Diagnosis of a tear of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. The role of arthroscopy of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85(3):324–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Colcuc C, et al. Treatment strategies for partial chronic instability of the distal syndesmosis: an arthroscopic grading scale and operative staging concept. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(2):157–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    • Watson BC, et al. Arthroscopic evaluation of syndesmotic instability in a cadaveric model. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(11):1362–8. Cadaveric study that evaluated how a physician can evaluate syndesmotic instability in multiple planes using arthroscopy. The authors found stability in the sagittal plane is more accurate to diagnosis syndesmotic instability when compared to the coronal plane CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    • Calder JD, et al. Stable versus unstable grade II high ankle sprains: a prospective study predicting the need for surgical stabilization and time to return to sports. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(4):634–42. This study presents describes a possible method to arthroscopically diagnose syndesmotic instability in grade II high ankle sprains. Also, this study compared how different physical exam tests correlated with stability of the syndesmosis by accessing this arthroscopically Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sikka RS, et al. Correlating MRI findings with disability in syndesmotic sprains of NFL players. Foot Ankle Int. 2012;33(5):371–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yeung TW, et al. Can pre-operative axial CT imaging predict syndesmosis instability in patients sustaining ankle fractures? Seven years' experience in a tertiary trauma center. Skelet Radiol. 2015;44(6):823–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sman AD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for ankle syndesmosis injury. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(5):323–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miller BS, et al. Time to return to play after high ankle sprains in collegiate football players: a prediction model. Sports Health. 2012;4(6):504–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lin CF, Gross ML, Weinhold P. Ankle syndesmosis injuries: anatomy, biomechanics, mechanism of injury, and clinical guidelines for diagnosis and intervention. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(6):372–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mulligan EP. Evaluation and management of ankle syndesmosis injuries. Phys Ther Sport. 2011;12(2):57–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chen Y, et al. A reliable radiographic measurement for evaluation of normal distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: a multi-detector computed tomography study in adults. J Foot Ankle Res. 2015;8:32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pneumaticos SG, et al. The effects of rotation on radiographic evaluation of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 2002;23(2):107–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schairer WW, et al. Arthroscopically assisted open reduction-internal fixation of ankle fractures: significance of the arthroscopic ankle drive-through sign. Arthrosc Tech. 2016;5(2):e407–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Milz P, et al. Lateral ankle ligaments and tibiofibular syndesmosis. 13-MHz high-frequency sonography and MRI compared in 20 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998;69(1):51–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krappel F, Schmitz R, Harland U. Sonographic diagnosis of anterior syndesmosis rupture. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1997;135(2):116–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Durkee NJ, et al. Sonographic evaluation of lower extremity interosseous membrane injuries: retrospective review in 3 patients. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22(12):1369–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mei-Dan O, et al. Standardization of the functional syndesmosis widening by dynamic U.S examination. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2013;5:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Laver L, et al. Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) as a treatment for high ankle sprain in elite athletes: a randomized control trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(11):3383–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Doughtie M. Syndesmotic ankle sprains in football: a survey of national football league athletic trainers. J Athl Train. 1999;34(1):15–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Drakos M, et al. Corticosteroid and anesthetic injections for muscle strains and ligament sprains in the NFL. HSS J. 2014;10(2):136–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schepers T, et al. The management of acute distal tibio-fibular syndesmotic injuries: results of a nationwide survey. Injury. 2012;43(10):1718–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McBryde A, et al. Syndesmotic screw placement: a biomechanical analysis. Foot Ankle Int. 1997;18(5):262–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Verim O, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of syndesmotic screw position: a finite-element analysis. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28(4):210–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stuart K, Panchbhavi VK. The fate of syndesmotic screws. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(5):S519–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Taylor DC, et al. Aggressive surgical treatment and early return to sports in athletes with grade III syndesmosis sprains. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(11):1833–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Liu Q, et al. Analysis of the stress and displacement distribution of inferior tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries repaired with screw fixation: a finite element study. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e80236.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    van den Bekerom MP, et al. Complications of distal tibiofibular syndesmotic screw stabilization: analysis of 236 patients. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2013;52(4):456–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lalli TA, et al. Economic impact of syndesmosis hardware removal. Foot (Edinb). 2015;25(3):131–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gennis E, et al. The fate of the fixed syndesmosis over time. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(10):1202–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Song DJ, et al. The effect of syndesmosis screw removal on the reduction of the distal tibiofibular joint: a prospective radiographic study. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(6):543–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hong CC, Lee WT, Tan KJ. Osteomyelitis after TightRope((R)) fixation of the ankle syndesmosis: a case report and review of the literature. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2015;54(1):130–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Qamar F, Kadakia A, Venkateswaran B. An anatomical way of treating ankle syndesmotic injuries. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2011;50(6):762–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rigby RB, Cottom JM. Does the Arthrex TightRope(R) provide maintenance of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis? A 2-year follow-up of 64 TightRopes(R) in 37 patients. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2013;52(5):563–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gough BE, et al. Novel flexible suture fixation for the distal tibiofibular syndesmotic joint injury: a cadaveric biomechanical model. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2014;53(6):706–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    • van Dijk CN, et al. Conservative and surgical management of acute isolated syndesmotic injuries: ESSKA-AFAS consensus and guidelines. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(4):1217–27. This is a literature review by ESSKA-AFAS that described consensus guidelines for conservative and surgical management of acute dislocated syndesmotic injuries CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Xenos JS, et al. The tibiofibular syndesmosis. Evaluation of the ligamentous structures, methods of fixation, and radiographic assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77(6):847–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kortekangas T, et al. A prospective randomised study comparing TightRope and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy and maintenance of syndesmotic reduction assessed with bilateral computed tomography. Injury. 2015;46(6):1119–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Westermann RW, et al. The effect of suture-button fixation on simulated syndesmotic malreduction: a cadaveric study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(20):1732–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Laflamme M, et al. A prospective randomized multicenter trial comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated surgically with a static or dynamic implant for acute ankle syndesmosis rupture. J Orthop Trauma. 2015;29(5):216–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Cottom JM, et al. Transosseous fixation of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: comparison of an interosseous suture and endobutton to traditional screw fixation in 50 cases. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2009;48(6):620–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wang L, et al. Biomechanical comparison of bionic, screw and endobutton fixation in the treatment of tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries. Int Orthop. 2016;40(2):307–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Seyhan M, et al. Comparison of screw fixation with elastic fixation methods in the treatment of syndesmosis injuries in ankle fractures. Injury. 2015;46(Suppl 2):S19–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Naqvi GA, Shafqat A, Awan N. Tightrope fixation of ankle syndesmosis injuries: clinical outcome, complications and technique modification. Injury. 2012;43(6):838–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gardner MJ, et al. Technical considerations in the treatment of syndesmotic injuries associated with ankle fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2015;23(8):510–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kennedy JG, et al. Evaluation of the syndesmotic screw in low Weber C ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2000;14(5):359–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pakarinen HJ, et al. Syndesmotic fixation in supination-external rotation ankle fractures: a prospective randomized study. Foot Ankle Int. 2011;32(12):1103–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yang Y, et al. Operative exploration and reduction of syndesmosis in Weber type C ankle injury. Acta Ortop Bras. 2013;21(2):103–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    van den Bekerom MP, de Leeuw PA, van Dijk CN. Delayed operative treatment of syndesmotic instability. Current concepts review. Injury. 2009;40(11):1137–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kelikian H, Kelikian A. Disorders of the ankle. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1985.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hansen Jr ST, Repair of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. In Functional construction of the foot and ankle. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000. p. 507–508.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    van Dijk CN. Syndesmotic injuries. Tech Foot Ankle Surg. 2006;5(1):34–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Beumer A, et al. Late reconstruction of the anterior distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: good outcome in 9 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(5):519–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Grass R, et al. Peroneus longus ligamentoplasty for chronic instability of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 2003;24(5):392–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lui TH. Endoscopic distal tibiofibular syndesmosis arthrodesis. Arthrosc Tech. 2016;5(2):e419–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Olson KM, Dairyko Jr GH, Toolan BC. Salvage of chronic instability of the syndesmosis with distal tibiofibular arthrodesis: functional and radiographic results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(1):66–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kortekangas T, et al. Effect of syndesmosis injury in SER IV (Weber B)-type ankle fractures on function and incidence of osteoarthritis. Foot Ankle Int. 2015;36(2):180–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Gill SL, et al. The use and efficacy of intra-operative stress tests in supination-external rotation IV ankle fracture fixation. Surgeon. 2015;13(1):9–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Gardner R, et al. Stabilization of the syndesmosis in the Maisonneuve fracture—a biomechanical study comparing 2-hole locking plate and quadricortical screw fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 2013;27(4):212–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    van der Werken C, Zeegers EV. Fracture of the lower leg with involvement of the posterior malleolus; a neglected combination? Injury. 1988;19(4):241–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Franke J, et al. Predictors of a persistent dislocation after reduction of syndesmotic injuries detected with intraoperative three-dimensional imaging. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(12):1323–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew L. Vopat
    • 1
  • Bryan G. Vopat
    • 2
  • Bart Lubberts
    • 3
  • Christopher W. DiGiovanni
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of Kansas School of Medicine-WichitaWichitaUSA
  2. 2.University of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA
  3. 3.Massachusetts General Hospital/ Harvard UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations