Static vs Dynamic Fixation of Distal Tibiofibular Syndesmosis: A Review of Overlapping Meta-Analyses

Abstract

Category:Ankle; SportsIntroduction/Purpose:Multiple Level I meta-analyses have been led comparing traditional static vs. more recently-introduced dynamic strategies of fixation for injuries of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis (TFS). The aim of this review was to assess their robustness and methodological quality, providing support in the choice of a treatment strategy in case of TFS injury using the highest level of evidence.Methods:In this systematic review, conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, we identified meta-analyses/systematic reviews comparing static and dynamic fixation methods after acute TFS injury. Robustness of studies was evaluated using the Fragility Index (FI) for meta-analysis and the Fragility Quotient (FQ). The risk of bias was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews(AMSTAR) instrument. Finally, the Jadad Decision Algorithm was applied to select the study which provided the highest quality of evidence to develop recommendations for the fixation strategy of these lesions.Results:Out of 1302 records, 4 Level I meta-analyses were included in this study. Analyzing the statistically significant dichotomous outcomes, the median FI was 3.5 (IQR, 2 to 5.5; range, 1 to 9) while the median FQ was 1.9% (IQR, 1 to 3.5; range 0.35 to 4.4). In total, 37% had a FI of 2 or less and 75% of outcomes had a FI of 4 or less. According to the AMSTAR score and Jadad algorithm, the largest meta-analysis was selected as the highest evidence provided so far.Conclusion:We selected the meta-analysis by Grassi et al. as the highest quality provided so far, which found that dynamic fixation reduced complication rates and improved clinical outcomes compared to static methods of fixation. We demonstrated that meta-analyses with statistically significant dichotomous outcomes comparing dynamic and static fixation for treating injuries of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis are fragile, with a change in less than 4 patients or less than 2% of the study population sufficient to reverse a significant outcome to nonsignificant. Based on these findings, we recommend caution when interpreting the results of these studies.