IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dbk/health/v4y2025ip629id629.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Endoscopic detection of syndesmosis damages in patients with ankle fractures including external rotation

Author

Listed:
  • Dev
  • Sahu
  • Singh
  • Gaonkar
  • Sharma
  • Premchandh

Abstract

Background: Syndesmosis injury is a frequent and severe complication in the setting of ankle fracture, especially external rotation-type. Early, precise diagnosis is necessary for proper management to avoid long-term disability. Intraoperative Syndesmosis integrity assessment is important in planning the need for surgery. Aim: The purpose of the research is to assess the efficacy of intraoperative diagnostic techniques in diagnosing Syndesmosis injuries in patients with ankle fractures caused by external rotation, and to evaluate the precision of clinical assessment, imaging modalities, and direct intraoperative evaluation. 100 patients were enrolled in the research to provide credible and statistically significant results. Methods: A group of 100 patients with ankle fracture, i.e., those due to external rotation mechanisms, was evaluated by clinical examination, preoperative imaging (CT scans, MRI), and intraoperative testing (stress tests, fluoroscopy). Surgical exploration was used to confirm intraoperative diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of all the methods were compared to decide the most appropriate diagnostic method. Results: The intraoperative assessment was most accurate in diagnosing Syndesmosis injuries than preoperative imaging and clinical examinations. Stress tests and fluoroscopic control were most useful in detecting subtle syndesmotic disruptions, with a sensitivity of 92.7% and specificity of 86.7%. Preoperative imaging had moderate accuracy, while clinical examinations were less accurate in detecting occult injuries.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:dbk:health:v:4:y:2025:i::p:629:id:629
DOI: 10.56294/hl2025629
as

Download full text from publisher

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
for a similarly titled item that would be available.

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dbk:health:v:4:y:2025:i::p:629:id:629. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Javier Gonzalez-Argote (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hl.ageditor.ar/ .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.