Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

Routine versus on demand removal of the syndesmotic screw; a protocol for an international randomised controlled trial (RODEO-trial)

Authors: S. A. Dingemans, M. F. N. Birnie, F. R. K. Sanders, M. P. J. van den Bekerom, M. Backes, E. van Beeck, F. W. Bloemers, B. van Dijkman, E. Flikweert, D. Haverkamp, H. R. Holtslag, J. M. Hoogendoorn, P. Joosse, M. Parkkinen, G. Roukema, N. Sosef, B. A. Twigt, R. N. van Veen, A. H. van der Veen, J. Vermeulen, J. Winkelhagen, B. C. van der Zwaard, S. van Dieren, J. C. Goslings, T. Schepers

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

Syndesmotic injuries are common and their incidence is rising. In case of surgical fixation of the syndesmosis a metal syndesmotic screw is used most often. It is however unclear whether this screw needs to be removed routinely after the syndesmosis has healed. Traditionally the screw is removed after six to 12 weeks as it is thought to hamper ankle functional and to be a source of pain. Some studies however suggest this is only the case in a minority of patients. We therefore aim to investigate the effect of retaining the syndesmotic screw on functional outcome.

Design

This is a pragmatic international multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with an acute syndesmotic injury for which a metallic syndesmotic screw was placed. Patients will be randomised to either routine removal of the syndesmotic screw or removal on demand. Primary outcome is functional recovery at 12 months measured with the Olerud-Molander Score. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, pain and costs. In total 194 patients will be needed to demonstrate non-inferiority between the two interventions at 80% power and a significance level of 0.025 including 15% loss to follow-up.

Discussion

If removal on demand of the syndesmotic screw is non-inferior to routine removal in terms of functional outcome, this will offer a strong argument to adopt this as standard practice of care. This means that patients will not have to undergo a secondary procedure, leading to less complications and subsequent lower costs.

Trial registration

This study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5965), Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02896998) on July 15th 2016.

De Boer a S, Schepers T, Panneman MJ, et al. Health care consumption and costs due to foot and ankle injuries in the Netherlands, 1986-2010. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15(1):128. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Daly PJ, Fitzgerald RH Jr, Melton LJ, Ilstrup DM. Epidemiology of ankle fractures in Rochester, Minnesota. Acta Orthop Scand. 1987;58(5):539. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453678709146395.CrossRefPubMed

Kannus P, Palvanen M, Niemi S, Parkkari J, Järvinen M. Stabilizing incidence of low-trauma ankle fractures in elderly people Finnish statistics in 1970-2006 and prediction for the future. Bone. 2008;43(2):340–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2008.04.015.CrossRefPubMed

Robertson GAJ, Wood AM, Aitken SA, et al. Increasing number and incidence of low-trauma ankle fractures in elderly people: Finnish statistics during 1970-2000 and projections for the future. Foot ankle Int. 2002;35(3):430–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100714546548.

van den Bekerom MPJ, Lamme B, Hogervorst M, Bolhuis HW. Which ankle fractures require syndesmotic stabilization? J Foot Ankle Surg. 46(6):456–63. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2007.08.009.

Schepers T. Acute distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: a systematic review of suture-button versus syndesmotic screw repair. Int Orthop. 2012;36(6):1199–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1500-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Schepers T, Van Der Linden H, Van Lieshout EMM, Niesten DD, Van Der Elst M. Technical aspects of the syndesmotic screw and their effect on functional outcome following acute distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury. Injury. 2014;45(4):775–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2013.09.035.CrossRefPubMed

van den Bekerom MPJ, Hogervorst M, Bolhuis HW, van Dijk CN. Operative aspects of the syndesmotic screw: review of current concepts. Injury. 2008;39(4):491–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2007.11.425.CrossRefPubMed

Schepers T, Van Zuuren WJ, Van Den Bekerom MPJ, Vogels LMM, Van Lieshout EMM. The management of acute distal tibio-fibular syndesmotic injuries: results of a nationwide survey. Injury. 2012;43(10):1718–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2012.06.015.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Schepers T, Dingemans SA, Rammelt S. Recent developments in the treatment of acute syndesmotic injuries. Fuß Sprunggelenk. 2016;14(2):66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuspru.2016.02.004.CrossRef

11.

Schatzker JTM. Fractures of the ankle. In: The rationale of operative fracture care. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2005.

12.

Bell DP, Wong MK. Syndesmotic screw fixation in Weber C ankle injuries-should the screw be removed before weight bearing? Injury. 2006;37(9):891–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2006.02.003.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Heim U, Pfeiffer K. Periphere Osteosynthesen. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1988.CrossRef

14.

Grath GB. Widening of the ankle mortise. A clinical and experimental study. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1960;Suppl 263:1–88.PubMed

15.

Close JR. Some applications of the functional anatomy of the ankle joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1956;38-A(4):761–81.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Manjoo A, Sanders DW, Tieszer C, MacLeod MD. Functional and radiographic results of patients with syndesmotic screw fixation: implications for screw removal. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24(1):2–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0b013e3181a9f7a5.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Weening B, Bhandari M. Predictors of functional outcome following transsyndesmotic screw fixation of ankle fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2005;19(2):102–8.CrossRefPubMed

18.

de Souza LJ, Gustilo RB, Meyer TJ. Results of operative treatment of displaced external rotation-abduction fractures of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(7):1066–74.

19.

Hamid N, Loeffler BJ, Braddy W, et al. Outcome after fixation of ankle fractures with an injury to the syndesmosis: the effect of the syndesmosis screw. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(8):1069–73. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B8.22430.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kaftandziev I, Spasov M, Trpeski S, Zafirova-Ivanovska B, Bakota B. Fate of the syndesmotic screw-search for a prudent solution. Injury. 2015;46:S125–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.10.062.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Dingemans SA, Rammelt S, White TO, Goslings JC, Schepers T. Should syndesmotic screws be removed after surgical fixation of unstable ankle fractures?: a systematic review. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(11):1497–504. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B11.BJJ-2016-0202.R1.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Needleman RL. Accurate reduction of an ankle syndesmosis with the "glide path" technique. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34(9):1308–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100713485740.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Walenkamp MMJ, de Muinck Keizer R-J, Goslings JC, Vos LM, Rosenwasser MP, Schep NWL. The minimum clinically important difference of the patient-rated wrist evaluation score for patients with distal radius fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(10):3235–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4376-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot ankle Int. 1994;15(7):349–53.

25.

Berríos-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 2017. JAMA Surg. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0904.

26.

Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.

27.

Boyle MJ, Gao R, Frampton CM, Coleman B. Removal of the syndesmotic screw after the surgical treatment of a fracture of the ankle in adult patients does not affect one-year outcomes: a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(12):1699–705. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B12.34258.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Routine versus on demand removal of the syndesmotic screw; a protocol for an international randomised controlled trial (RODEO-trial)
Authors: S. A. Dingemans
M. F. N. Birnie
F. R. K. Sanders
M. P. J. van den Bekerom
M. Backes
E. van Beeck
F. W. Bloemers
B. van Dijkman
E. Flikweert
D. Haverkamp
H. R. Holtslag
J. M. Hoogendoorn
P. Joosse
M. Parkkinen
G. Roukema
N. Sosef
B. A. Twigt
R. N. van Veen
A. H. van der Veen
J. Vermeulen
J. Winkelhagen
B. C. van der Zwaard
S. van Dieren
J. C. Goslings
T. Schepers
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-1946-5

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Routine versus on demand removal of the syndesmotic screw; a protocol for an international randomised controlled trial (RODEO-trial)

Abstract

Background

Design

Discussion

Trial registration

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Design

Discussion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

A population-based study of the risk of osteoporosis and fracture with dutasteride and finasteride

Reliability and validity of a novel Kinect-based software program for measuring posture, balance and side-bending

Comparison of intravenous and topical tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty

The use of bidirectional rapid reductor in minimally invasive treatment of bicondylar tibial plateau fractures: preliminary radiographic and clinical results

Optimal viewing angles of intraoperative fluoroscopy for detecting screw penetration in proximal humeral fractures: a cadaveric study

A comparison of the stem cell characteristics of murine tenocytes and tendon-derived stem cells