Surgical repair of grade 3 lateral ligament ankle ruptures reduces re-injury .
This study has been identified as potentially high impact.
OE's AI-driven High Impact metric estimates the influence a paper is likely to have by integrating signals from both the journal in which it is published and the scientific content of the article itself.
Developed using state-of-the-art natural language processing, the OE High Impact model more accurately predicts a study's future citation performance than journal impact factor alone.
This enables earlier recognition of clinically meaningful research and helps readers focus on articles most likely to shape future practice.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(2):77 J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Oct 20;92(14):2367-74. Epub 2010 Sep 10.51 physically active Finnish men with the acute rupture of the lateral ligament of the ankle were randomized to be treated with either the surgical repair and accelerated functional treatment or with traditional functional treatment using Aircast ankle brace. The long-term results of surgical treatment of acute lateral ligament rupture of the ankle corresponded well with functional treatment modalities alone; however, the surgical treatment had a lower re-rupture incidence, but was associated with higher rates of osteoarthritis of the ankle joint.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Yes = 1
Uncertain = 0.5
Not Relevant = 0
No = 0
The Reporting Criteria Assessment evaluates the transparency with which authors report the methodological and trial characteristics of the trial within the publication. The assessment is divided into five categories which are presented below.
3/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
1/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
The Fragility Index is a tool that aids in the interpretation of significant findings, providing a measure of strength for a result. The Fragility Index represents the number of consecutive events that need to be added to a dichotomous outcome to make the finding no longer significant. A small number represents a weaker finding and a large number represents a stronger finding.
Why was this study needed now?
Lateral ligament ankle injuries are very common with over 300,000 cases reporting annually to emergency rooms in UK alone. The treatment of acute ruptures of the lateral ligaments is a controversial issue with insufficient evidence to compare surgical and non-surgical modalities. Previous studies have shown notable design flaws, such as short follow-ups, faulty randomizations, and heterogeneous study samples. This study evaluated the long term outcomes of the surgical vs non-surgical approaches.
What was the principal research question?
Does the surgery provide better long-term outcomes than a purely functional rehabilitation for the grade 3 lateral ankle ruptures?
- The prevalence of reinjury was 1/15 in the surgical group and 7/18 in the functional treatment group (risk difference: 32%; 95% confidence interval: 6% to 58%).
- The mean ankle score on Performance Test Protocol and Scoring Scale for the Evaluation of Ankle Injuries was not significantly different between the groups (mean difference: 8.3 points; 95% confidence interval:-0.03 to 16.6 points)
- Stress radiographs showed no differences between groups, with regard to the mean anterior drawer (1 mm in the surgical group and 0 mm in the functional group; mean difference: 0.7 mm; 95% confidence interval:1.4 to 2.7 mm) or mean tilt angle (0 degrees in both groups; mean difference: 0.1 degrees; 95% confidence interval: 3.2 degrees to 3.5 degrees)
- Grade-II osteoarthritis was observed on magnetic resonance images of 4/15 surgically treated patients and 0/18 for the functionally treated patients (risk difference: 27%; 95% confidence interval: 4% to 49%)
- 10/15 patients in the surgical group and 7/18 in functional group subjectively reported complete recovery (risk difference: 28%; 95% confidence interval: -5% to 61%). All patients in both groups recovered to preinjury activity level (walk and run normally)
- The level of physical activity, range of motion compared to contralateral ankle, and number of patients visiting a physician at the time of follow-up did not differ between the two groups.
- 3/15 surgical patients had loss of sensation in the lateral aspect of ankle and foot. No re-operations due to ankle instability, infections, or incidences of venous thrombosis were seen in either group.
What should I remember most?
The recovery to preinjury levels of acute lateral grade III ligament rupture of the ankle was equivalent when using either surgical or nonoperative methods. Re-injury was significantly less in surgical group; however, there was significantly more OA present.
How will this affect the care of my patients?
This study questions whether to subject patients to surgical risks given the evidence of equal pre-injury recovery, and suggests that non-surgical treatments can be equally beneficial. However, larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.
DISCLAIMER
This content found on this page is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you require medical treatment, always seek the advice of your physician or go to your nearest emergency department. The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the individuals on the content found on this page do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of OrthoEvidence.
0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
