AzTrials
AzTrials

Fracture Dislocation of Ankle JointARTNCT02245893

A Prospective Randomized Pilot Study to Compare Open Versus Percutaneous Syndesmosis Repair of Unstable Ankle Fractures

A study testing open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in people with Fracture Dislocation of Ankle Joint, run by London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's at 1 site in Canada.

Unknown status

Status not confirmed. The sponsor has not verified this record for over two years, so it may be out of date.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This study evaluates fracture healing, anatomic reduction and return to functioning in patients with unstable Weber C type fractures of the ankle. Best outcomes are obtained when a good alignment of the ankle joint is maintained and natural function of the syndesmosis (space between the tibia and fibula bones) is… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Fracture Dislocation of Ankle Joint
What is being tested?
open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
50 participants
Where
1 siteCanada
Study dates
Aug 2013to Jun 2020
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • The subject is 18 years old or greater with a pre-operative diagnosis of a Weber C ankle fracture (supination-external rotation, pronation-external rotation, pronation-abduction patterns).
  • The subject demonstrates lateral subluxation of the talus on x-ray or stress views (unstability).
  • The lateral malleolus fracture if present begins at least 1.0 cm proximal to the syndesmosis.
  • The subject has no history of previous ankle injury.
  • The subject does not have an ipsilateral lower extremity injury that would impede results.
  • The subject has no neuromuscular or neurosensory deficiency that would limit the ability to assess the operative procedure.
  • -

Who cannot join

  • The subject has a lateral malleolus fracture that begins less than 1.0 cm proximal to the syndesmosis.
  • The subject has an open ankle fracture with a lateral wound. -

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Canada1 site
  • London Health Sciences Centre

    London, Ontario, N6A4G5

Other trials in Canada

About this study

This study evaluates fracture healing, anatomic reduction and return to functioning in patients with unstable Weber C type fractures of the ankle. Best outcomes are obtained when a good alignment of the ankle joint is maintained and natural function of the syndesmosis (space between the tibia and fibula bones) is restored. The syndesmosis and ankle joint is stabilized by a series of ligaments which are often damaged in Weber C type fractures. Current syndesmosis repair techniques traverse the tibia and fibula, but do not anatomically reconstruct the ligaments. The investigators will compare reconstruction of the unstable syndesmosis by open reduction and internal fixation using a syndesmosis screw coupled with anterior ligament (AiTFL) anatomic repair technique (ART) to percutaneous repair using a syndemosis screw only (SCREW). Radiographic, pain and functional outcome scores will be compared between the groups using validated outcome measures.

Read the detailed description

High ankle fractures involve fracture of the fibula above the level of the syndesmosis (space between the tibia and fibula bones) that result from indirect mechanisms (e.g. pronation-external rotation (twisting) injuries. The method of injury is assumed to disrupt one or more of the syndesmotic ligaments, leading to instability of the ankle mortise . High ankle fractures comprise a significant proportion of ankle injuries (16 to 45 % of all ankle fractures patterns) . It is generally agreed that operative intervention of ankle injuries is indicated in cases of instability . However, recent advances in the understanding of the biomechanics of the ankle have given rise to particular areas of clinical uncertainty, including the treatment of unstable syndesmotic injuries and reliability of strictly radiographic assessment of ankle fractures .

The goal of operative treatment is to anatomically reduce the ankle mortise to permit syndesmosis ligament healing and restoration of the normal tibiofibular joint dynamics. Even 1 mm of displacement or lateral shift of the talus will affect ankle joint loading and lead to dysfunction and potentially degenerative joint changes. Accurate reduction of the syndesmosis and maintenance of this reduced position until the ligaments heal is crucial to ensure good outcome and to avoid long term arthritic changes in the tibiofibular joint .

If the ankle joint is unstable (too much sideways movement), the syndesmosis space between the two bones in the ankle (tibia and fibula) needs to be stabilized. One method to treat unstable syndesmosis injuries is making an incision to expose the ankle to provide direct visualization of fracture for anatomic reduction (alignment) and insertion of one or two syndesmosis screws to maintain the relationship of the fibula to the tibia. This is referred to as open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

Another method of repair is by closed reduction of the ankle joint and the use of one or two percutaneous syndesmosis screws only. That is, syndesmosis stabilization can be done percutaneously using intraoperative fluoroscopy to visualize the repair . Literature and standard practice support both of these methods.

The syndesmosis joint complex is composed of the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament (AiTFL), the posterior inferior tibiofibular ligament (PiTFL) and the interosseous membrane (IOM). This complex is believed to permit ankle mortise stability and flexibility due to the elasticity of the ligaments, which allows the intermalleolar distance to change and facilitates tibial and fibular rotation. It also maintains the axis of balanced loading of the foot through the fibula. Adequate stability and anatomic restoration of the syndesmosis joint complex is vital to restoring normal tibiotalar contact forces in order to lessen the risk of posttraumatic arthritis.

Clinical studies have shown that anatomic reduction of the PiTFL provides a more accurate reduction of the ankle mortise than percutaneous reduction while ORIF fixation of the PiTFL has been shown on both biomechanical and clinical studies to provide greater stability than with syndesmotic screws alone .

However, due to the mechanism if injury, the AiTFL is the initial and may be the only lateral ligamentous stabilize structure compromised in syndesmotic injury. Kinematically, this ligament provides roughly half of the strength of the syndesmosis and acts as a vital primary restraint to excessive fibular displacement. The remainder of the stability is believed to come from bony restraints such as the posterior malleolus and the PiTFL . As such, direct reconstruction of the AiTFL component of the syndesmosis joint may accurately restore syndesmotic stability. Current syndesmosis repair techniques traverse the tibia and fibula (trans syndesmotic repair), but do not anatomically reconstruct the AiTFL.

Although it is known that an accurate reduction of the syndesmosis is essential to a good outcome, current treatments may have malreduction rates greater than 40% . In light of the existing models of syndesmosis injury, and the investigators' understanding of the importance of syndesmosis reduction, it may be that restoration of the AiTFL may potentially unlock a higher rate of anatomic reductions and positive outcomes.

Cadaveric and clinical studies have demonstrated that a flexible trans-osseous fixation technique may be viable and may improve ligamentous healing . However, current flexible techniques may not provide adequate stability and may not reduce the rate of malreduction compared to screw fixation.

The investigators recently conducted biomechanical studies in our lab using cadaveric ankles. The investigators compared whether a technique of syndesmosis repair concentrating on restoration of the AiTFL ligament (Anatomic repair technique or ART) provides a more anatomic reconstruction of the syndesmosis joint than rigid screw or posterior malleolus fixation.

The investigators' findings have demonstrated that our anatomic repair technique (ART) offers a repair which is sufficiently stable compared to screw fixation, with a lower incidence of malreduction as visualized on CT scan.

The investigator research suggests that ORIF repair of the AiTFL in addition to the stability provided by syndesmotic screw repair enhances syndesmosis stability substantially, as the AiTFL is a primary stabilizer to external rotation forces. In other words, fixing the anterior ligament may provide a better outcome and faster return to functioning.

Further in vivo testing is required to evaluate ART for repair of unstable syndesmosis injuries.

Being tested
open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)Procedure or surgery

    The study design is a prospective, randomized pilot clinical trial of the treatment of unstable syndesmosis injuries sustained with Weber C type fractures. Comparison will be made between two syndesmosis stabilization methods: 1) Percutaneous (closed) reduction using syndesmosis fixation by SCREW 2) Open reduction (ORIF) with ART repair of the anterior ligament and stabilization of the syndesmosis by use of a syndesmosis screw.

Study groups in NCT02245893
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
ScrewActive comparatorIn the SCREW Group (standard surgery technique), surgical treatment will be by closed reduction utilizing intraoperative fluoroscopy to visualize the reduction and percutaneous syndesmosis screw insertion. Intraoperative fluoroscopic stress and non-stress views will be obtained as per standard of care. 'open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)
Receives: Procedure: open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)
Anatomic repair technique (ART)Active comparatorIn the ART group (study group) surgical treatment will be by open reduction and internal fixation. In order to stabilize the syndesmosis, direct visual anatomic alignment will be conducted and a syndesmotic screw inserted. In addition, fixation of the anterior ligament will be performed with use of a 2.7 to 4.0 mm suture anchor. Repair of the intact portion of the ligament will be made using a modified Mason -Allen repair. Intraoperative fluoroscopic stress and non-stress views will be obtained as per standard of care. 'open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)
Receives: Procedure: open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. CT scan

    assessment of ankle alignment

    Measured: 3 month

Secondary outcomes (6)
  1. Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAO),

    Functional outcome assessment

    Measured: 6 weeks, 3 , 6 , 12 months

  2. AOFAS Hindfoot Score

    Functional outcome assessment

    Measured: 6 weeks, 3 , 6 , 12 months

  3. Maryland Foot Score

    Functional outcome assessment

    Measured: 6 weeks, 3 , 6 , 12 months

  4. Radiographic healing

    xray

    Measured: 6 weeks, 3 , 6 , 12 months

  5. Complication- Infection

    clinical and xray review of fracture documented

    Measured: 6 weeks, 3 , 6 , 12 months

  6. Complication-Implant Failure

    clinical and xray review of fracture documented

    Measured: 6 weeks, 3 , 6 , 12 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted22 Sep 2014 (estimated)
  2. Study startAug 2013
  3. Primary completionSep 2016
  4. Study completionJun 2020 (estimated)

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Non-randomised
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
50 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT02245893
Sponsor's protocol ID
103747
Acronym
ART
Status last verified
Feb 2019
First submitted
17 Sep 2014
Last updated
26 Feb 2019
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Harris IA, Jones HP. The fate of the syndesmosis in type C ankle fractures: a cadaveric study. Injury. 1997 May;28(4):275-7. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(97)00010-7.

    PubMed 9282181
  • Leeds HC, Ehrlich MG. Instability of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis after bimalleolar and trimalleolar ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984 Apr;66(4):490-503.

    PubMed 6423645
  • Ebraheim NA, Mekhail AO, Gargasz SS. Ankle fractures involving the fibula proximal to the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int. 1997 Aug;18(8):513-21. doi: 10.1177/107110079701800811.

    PubMed 9278748
  • Boden SD, Labropoulos PA, McCowin P, Lestini WF, Hurwitz SR. Mechanical considerations for the syndesmosis screw. A cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989 Dec;71(10):1548-55.

    PubMed 2512295
  • Michelson JD. Fractures about the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Jan;77(1):142-52. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199501000-00020. No abstract available.

    PubMed 7822349
  • Solari J, Benjamin J, Wilson J, Lee R, Pitt M. Ankle mortise stability in Weber C fractures: indications for syndesmotic fixation. J Orthop Trauma. 1991;5(2):190-5. doi: 10.1097/00005131-199105020-00012.

    PubMed 1861195
  • Yamaguchi K, Martin CH, Boden SD, Labropoulos PA. Operative treatment of syndesmotic disruptions without use of a syndesmotic screw: a prospective clinical study. Foot Ankle Int. 1994 Aug;15(8):407-14. doi: 10.1177/107110079401500801.

    PubMed 7981810
  • Ramsey PL, Hamilton W. Changes in tibiotalar area of contact caused by lateral talar shift. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Apr;58(3):356-7.

    PubMed 1262367
  • Parfenchuck TA, Frix JM, Bertrand SL, Corpe RS. Clinical use of a syndesmosis screw in stage IV pronation-external rotation ankle fractures. Orthop Rev. 1994 Aug;Suppl:23-8.

    PubMed 7970880
  • Bauer M, Jonsson K, Nilsson B. Thirty-year follow-up of ankle fractures. Acta Orthop Scand. 1985 Apr;56(2):103-6. doi: 10.3109/17453678508994329.

    PubMed 3925709
  • Gardner MJ, Demetrakopoulos D, Briggs SM, Helfet DL, Lorich DG. Malreduction of the tibiofibular syndesmosis in ankle fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 2006 Oct;27(10):788-92. doi: 10.1177/107110070602701005.

    PubMed 17054878
  • Phillips WA, Schwartz HS, Keller CS, Woodward HR, Rudd WS, Spiegel PG, Laros GS. A prospective, randomized study of the management of severe ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985 Jan;67(1):67-78.

    PubMed 3881447
  • Coetzee JC, Ebeling P. Treatment of syndesmosis disruptions with TightRope Fixation. Tech Foot Ankle Surg. 7(3):196-202, 2008.

  • Forsythe K, Freedman KB, Stover MD, Patwardhan AG. Comparison of a novel FiberWire-button construct versus metallic screw fixation in a syndesmotic injury model. Foot Ankle Int. 2008 Jan;29(1):49-54. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2008.0049.

    PubMed 18275736
  • Soin SP, Knight TA, Dinah AF, Mears SC, Swierstra BA, Belkoff SM. Suture-button versus screw fixation in a syndesmosis rupture model: a biomechanical comparison. Foot Ankle Int. 2009 Apr;30(4):346-52. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2009.0346.

    PubMed 19356360

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in people with Fracture Dislocation of Ankle Joint, run by London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's at 1 site in Canada.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 7 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Feb 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Results are not available in the source record.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

CT scan (time frame: 3 month). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02245893, which also lists 22 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Feb 2019.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in