Skip to main content
JDRS · Open access journal
Joint Diseases and
Related Surgery
Online manuscript submissionSubmit a manuscript e-ISSN 2687-4792

Original Article · Open access

A comparative analysis of different suture-button orientations for optimal dynamic stabilization of injured syndesmosis: A finite element study

PDF Cite this article

Kazım Taşar

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Antalya Korkuteli State Hospital, Antalya Türkiye

ORCID: 0009-0001-5328-1884

Mehmet Kemal Gürsoy

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Van Training and Research Hospital, Van, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0003-1232-4195

Levent Uğur

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amasya University, Faculty of Engineering, Amasya, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0003-3447-3191

Osman Civan

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Private Akdeniz Health Foundation Yaşam Hospital, Antalya, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0003-0216-1169

Hakan Özdemir

Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Akdeniz University Faculty of Medicine, Antalya, Türkiye

ORCID: 0000-0003-3723-1606

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to identify the optimal suture-button orientation which supports physiological ligament healing by limiting pathological lateral and posterior translation, as well as rotational motion in the axial plane of the syndesmosis joint, through dynamic suture-button fixation.

Materials and methods: A solid ankle model and a syndesmotic injury model were developed using finite element analysis. To address the syndesmotic injury, five different suture-button fixation configurations were designed. These models were analyzed by simulating the loading conditions during the heel-off phase of the stance phase. Evaluations included fibular displacement in the anterior-posterior and medial-lateral planes, rotational angles in the axial plane, and measurements of anterior and posterior tibiofibular clear space (A-TFCS and P-TFCS).

Results: All models utilizing double suture-buttons demonstrated superior control of pathological fibular motion compared to the conventional single suture-button fixation technique (Model 1). Among them, the configuration employing double suture-buttons aligned with the anatomical orientations of the AITFL and PITFL (Model 3) was the most effective in achieving anatomical reduction and preserving physiological fibular motion. Model 5, which was specifically designed to minimize the risk of injury to neurovascular structures, tendons, and articular cartilage, reduced pathological displacement in the coronal and sagittal planes by 3% and 1%, respectively, compared to Model 3. However, it exhibited a 0.5° deficiency in limiting external rotation relative to Model 3.

Conclusion: The results obtained with Model 5 closely approximate those of the healthy ankle and demonstrate its potential as a promising fixation method which preserves critical anatomical structures. This model allows for anatomical reduction of the syndesmosis, effectively prevents pathological syndesmotic motion, and maintains physiological fibular movement. In light of these findings, we believe that Model 5 may be among the preferred techniques in the treatment strategies for syndesmotic injuries.

Declarations

Author Contributions

Obtained data and wrote the paper: M.K.G., K.T., L.U., O.C., H.Ö.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Financial Disclosure

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Data Sharing Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Canton SP, Gale T, Onyeukwu C, Hogan MV, Anderst W. Syndesmosis repair affects in vivo distal interosseous tibiofibular ligament elongation under static loads and during dynamic activities. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2021;103:1927- 36. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.20.01787.
  2. Vohra R, Singh A, Thorat B, Patel D. Instability of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2023;31:10225536231182349. DOI: 10.1177/10225536231182349.
  3. Elabd A, Abdullah S, Kandel W, Hegazy M. Syndesmotic stabilization: Syndesmotic screw versus flexible fixation: A systematic review. J Foot Ankle Surg 2021;60:998-1007. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2020.09.021.
  4. den Daas A, van Zuuren WJ, Pelet S, van Noort A, van den Bekerom MP. Flexible stabilization of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis: Clinical and biomechanical considerations: A review of the literature. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2012;7:123-9. DOI: 10.1007/s11751-012-0147-2.
  5. Thornes B, Walsh A, Hislop M, Murray P, O'Brien M. Suture-endobutton fixation of ankle tibio-fibular diastasis: A cadaver study. Foot Ankle Int 2003;24:142-6. DOI: 10.1177/107110070302400208.
  6. Klitzman R, Zhao H, Zhang LQ, Strohmeyer G, Vora A. Suture-button versus screw fixation of the syndesmosis: A biomechanical analysis. Foot Ankle Int 2010;31:69-75. DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2010.0069.
  7. LaMothe JM, Baxter JR, Murphy C, Gilbert S, DeSandis B, Drakos MC. Three-dimensional analysis of fibular motion after fixation of syndesmotic ınjuries with a screw or suture-button construct. Foot Ankle Int 2016;37:1350-6. DOI: 10.1177/1071100716666865.
  8. Xu K, Zhang J, Zhang P, Liang Y, Hu JL, Wang X, et al. Comparison of suture-button versus syndesmotic screw in the treatment of distal tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: A meta-analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg 2021;60:555-66. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2020.08.005.
  9. Lee JS, Curnutte B, Pan K, Liu J, Ebraheim NA. Biomechanical comparison of suture-button, bioabsorbable screw, and metal screw for ankle syndesmotic repair: A meta-analysis. Foot Ankle Surg 2021;27:117-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2020.03.008.
  10. Migliorini F, Maffulli N, Cocconi F, Schäfer L, Bell A, Katusic D, et al. Better outcomes using suture button compared to screw fixation in talofibular syndesmotic injuries of the ankle: A level I evidence-based meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2024;144:2641-53. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-024-05354-x.
  11. Andersen MR, Frihagen F, Hellund JC, Madsen JE, Figved W. Randomized trial comparing suture button with single syndesmotic screw for syndesmosis injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018;100:2-12. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.16.01011.
  12. Clanton TO, Whitlow SR, Williams BT, Liechti DJ, Backus JD, Dornan GJ, et al. Biomechanical comparison of 3 current ankle syndesmosis repair techniques. Foot Ankle Int 2017;38:200-7. DOI: 10.1177/1071100716666278.
  13. Alastuey-López D, Seral B, Pérez MÁ. Biomechanical evaluation of syndesmotic fixation techniques via finite element analysis: Screw vs. suture button. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2021;208:106272. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106272.
  14. Güvercin Y, Abdioğlu AA, Dizdar A, Yaylacı EU, Yaylacı M. Suture button fixation method used in the treatment of syndesmosis injury: A biomechanical analysis of the effect of the placement of the button on the distal tibiofibular joint in the mid-stance phase with finite elements method. Injury 2022;53:2437-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2022.05.037.
  15. Williams BT, Ahrberg AB, Goldsmith MT, Campbell KJ, Shirley L, Wijdicks CA, et al. Ankle syndesmosis: A qualitative and quantitative anatomic analysis. Am J Sports Med 2015;43:88-97. DOI: 10.1177/0363546514554911.
  16. İğde N, Kurt A, Aycan OE, Arslan MC, Bıyıklı T. The impact of proximal fibula resection on foot and ankle biomechanics: A radiological and pedobarographic evaluation. Jt Dis Relat Surg 2025;36:373-82. DOI: 10.52312/jdrs.2025.2185.
  17. Yaka H, Kesik K, Başbuğ V, Küçükşen MF, Özer M. Is medial or lateral localization of osteochondral lesions of talus related to foot angles? Jt Dis Relat Surg 2024;35:96-104. DOI: 10.52312/jdrs.2023.1373.
  18. Clanton TO, Campbell KJ, Wilson KJ, Michalski MP, Goldsmith MT, Wijdicks CA, et al. Qualitative and quantitative anatomic investigation of the lateral ankle ligaments for surgical reconstruction procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014;96:e98. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00798.
  19. Demirtas Y, Emet A. The comparison of the two different patella fracture fixation technique: Finite element analysis. IJPTE 2022;2:95-8. DOI: 10.56158/jpte.2022.35.1.02.
  20. Gray HA, Taddei F, Zavatsky AB, Cristofolini L, Gill HS. Experimental validation of a finite element model of a human cadaveric tibia. J Biomech Eng 2008;130:031016. DOI: 10.1115/1.2913335.
  21. Sumanont S, Nopamassiri S, Boonrod A, Apiwatanakul P, Boonrod A, Phornphutkul C. Acromioclavicular joint dislocation: A Dog Bone button fixation alone versus Dog Bone button fixation augmented with acromioclavicular repair-a finite element analysis study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2018;28:1095-101. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-018-2186-y.
  22. Beumer A, van Hemert WL, Swierstra BA, Jasper LE, Belkoff SM. A biomechanical evaluation of the tibiofibular and tibiotalar ligaments of the ankle. Foot Ankle Int 2003;24:426- 9. DOI: 10.1177/107110070302400509.
  23. Sikka RS, Fetzer GB, Sugarman E, Wright RW, Fritts H, Boyd JL, et al. Correlating MRI findings with disability in syndesmotic sprains of NFL players. Foot Ankle Int 2012;33:371-8. DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2012.0371.
  24. Mercan N, Yıldırım A, Dere Y. Biomechanical analysis of tibiofibular syndesmosis injury fixation methods: A Finite element analysis. J Foot Ankle Surg 2023;62:107-14. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2022.05.007.
  25. Shuler FD, Woods D, Tankersley Z, McDaniel C, Hamm J, Jones J, et al. An anatomical study on the safe placement of orthopedic hardware for syndesmosis fixation. Orthopedics 2017;40:e329-33. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20161219-03.
  26. Haraguchi N, Armiger RS, Myerson MS, Campbell JT, Chao EY. Prediction of three-dimensional contact stress and ligament tension in the ankle during stance determined from computational modeling. Foot Ankle Int 2009;30:177-85. DOI: 10.3113/FAI-2009-0177.
  27. Stauffer RN, Chao EY, Brewster RC. Force and motion analysis of the normal, diseased, and prosthetic ankle joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1977;(127):189-96.
  28. 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;30:346-52. DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2009.0346.
  29. 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;29:49-54. DOI: 10.3113/FAI.2008.0049.
  30. Parker AS, Beason DP, Slowik JS, Sabatini JB, Waldrop NE 3rd. Biomechanical comparison of 3 syndesmosis repair techniques with suture button implants. Orthop J Sports Med 2018;6:2325967118804204. DOI: 10.1177/2325967118804204.
  31. Meekaew P, Paholpak P, Wisanuyotin T, Sirichativapee W, Sirichativapee W, Kosuwon W, et al. Biomechanics comparison between endobutton fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation for syndesmotic injury ankle fracture; A finite element analysis and cadaveric validation study. J Orthop. 2022;34:207-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2022.08.019.
  32. Xu HL, Song YJ, Hua YH. Reconstruction of chronic injured distal tibiofibular syndesmosis with autogenous tendon graft: A systematic review. Biomed Res Int 2021;2021:3182745. DOI: 10.1155/2021/3182745.
  33. Wixted CM, Luo EJ, Stauffer TP, Wu KA, Adams SB, Anastasio AT. Biomechanical profile of varying suture button constructs in cadaveric specimens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Transl Med 2023;11:344. DOI: 10.21037/atm-23-1527.
  34. O'Daly AE, Kreulen RT, Thamyongkit S, Pisano A, Luksameearunothai K, Hasenboehler EA, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of a new suture button technique for reduction and stabilization of the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Orthop 2020;5:2473011420969140. DOI: 10.1177/2473011420969140.
  35. Candal-Couto JJ, Burrow D, Bromage S, Briggs PJ. Instability of the tibio-fibular syndesmosis: Have we been pulling in the wrong direction? Injury 2004;35:814-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2003.10.013.
  36. Boyd BS, Doty JF, Kluemper C, Kadakia AR. Anatomic risk to the neurovascular structures with a medially based allinside syndesmosis suture button technique. J Foot Ankle Surg 2020;59:95-9. DOI: 10.1053/j.jfas.2019.07.016.
  37. Harper MC, Keller TS. A radiographic evaluation of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. Foot Ankle 1989;10:156-60. DOI: 10.1177/107110078901000308.
  38. Ostrum RF, De Meo P, Subramanian R. A critical analysis of the anterior-posterior radiographic anatomy of the ankle syndesmosis. Foot Ankle Int 1995;16:128-31. DOI: 10.1177/107110079501600304.
  39. Elgafy H, Semaan HB, Blessinger B, Wassef A, Ebraheim NA. Computed tomography of normal distal tibiofibular syndesmosis. Skeletal Radiol 2010;39:559-64. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-009-0809-4.
  40. Chen Y, Qiang M, Zhang K, Li H, Dai H. 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. DOI: 10.1186/s13047-015-0093-6.
  41. Spindler FT, Gaube FP, Böcker W, Polzer H, Baumbach SF. Compensation of dynamic fixation systems in the quality of reduction of distal tibiofibular joint in acute syndesmotic complex injuries: A CT-based analysis. Foot Ankle Int 2022;43:1393-401. DOI: 10.1177/10711007221115193.
  42. Aitor IG, Galvez-Sirvent E, Martinez-Diez JM, PallaresSanmartín J, Kalbakdij-Sanchez C, Mills S, et al. Comparative CT study on syndesmosis mobility after static or dynamic fixation for ankle fractures with syndesmotic rupture: A pilot study. Arch Bone Jt Surg 2022;10:702-11. DOI: 10.22038/ABJS.2022.61845.3020.
  43. Ramsey PL, Hamilton W. Changes in tibiotalar area of contact caused by lateral talar shift. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976;58:356-7.
  44. Hunt KJ, Goeb Y, Behn AW, Criswell B, Chou L. Ankle joint contact loads and displacement with progressive syndesmotic injury. Foot Ankle Int 2015;36:1095-103. DOI: 10.1177/1071100715583456.