Foot & Ankle International - June 2017 - 699

LaMothe et al
footprint in each condition. However, movement of the sensor precluded the correlation of centers of high pressure with
the anatomic location on the talus.
In conclusion, syndesmotic disruption altered global
ankle contact mechanics. Despite performing 3 different
syndesmotic reduction techniques, contact mechanics was
not restored to the intact situation. Reducing the syndesmosis with pressure generated by a surgeon's thumb performed
slightly better than the reduction clamp or suture-button
construct; however, no reduction technique restored contact
mechanics to the intact situation. Taken together with the
published literature, these data suggest that factors in addition to tibiotalar alignment are important in determining the
contact mechanics of the tibial plafond in syndesmotic injuries, and further studies are needed to determine what these
factors are.
Acknowledgments
The study took place at the Hospital for Special Surgery and was
approved by the institution's Department of Biomechanics. The
study was presented in part at the American Orthopaedic Foot &
Ankle Society (AOFAS) Specialty Day Meeting; Las Vegas,
Nevada; March 28, 2015.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: Mark C. Drakos, MD, is a paid consultant for Extremity
Medical and FastForm Medical, neither of whose products are
involved in the current study.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
authors acknowledge Arthrex for the provision of TightRope. This
article was supported by a grant (#2013-09 in 2013) from the
American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society with funding from
the Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Foundation.

References
1. Baxter JR, Demtracopoulos CA, Prado MP, Gilbert SL,
Tharmviboonsri T, Deland JT. Graft shape affects midfoot
correction and forefoot loading mechanics in lateral column lengthening osteotomies. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(11):
1192-1199.
2. Brown TD, Rudert MJ, Grosland NM. New methods for
assessing cartilage contact pressure after articular fracture.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;423:52-58.
3. Burns WC, Prakash K, Adelaar R, Beaudoin A, Krause W.
Tibotalar joint dynamics: indications for the syndesmotic
screw. A cadaver study. Foot Ankle Int. 1993;14(3):153-158.
4. Chissell HR, Jones J. The influence of a diastasis screw on the
outcome of Weber type-C ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg
Br. 1995;77(3):435-438.

699
5. Clarke HJ, Michelson JD, Cox QG, Jinnah RH. Tibio-talar
stability in bimalleolar ankle fractures: a dynamic in vitro
contact area study. Foot Ankle Int. 1991;11(4):222-227.
6. Earll M, Wayne J, Brodrick C, Vokshoor A, Adelaar R.
Contribution of the deltoid ligament to ankle joint contact characteristics: a cadaver study. Foot Ankle Int. 1996;17(6):317324.
7. Fitzpatrick DC, Otto JK, McKinley TO, Marsh JL, Brown
TD. Kinematic and contact stress analysis of posterior malleolus fractures of the ankle. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(5):271278.
8. Gardner MJ, Demetrakopoulos D, Briggs SM, Helfet DL,
Lorich DG. Malreduction of the tibiofibular syndesmosis in
ankle fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27(10):788-792.
9. Hartford JM, Gorczyca JT, McNamara JL, Mayor MB.
Tibiotalar contact area: contribution of posterior malleolus
and deltoid ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;320:182187.
10. Hutchinson ID, Baxter JR, Gilbert S, et al. How do hindfoot
fusions affect ankle biomechanics: a cadaver model. Clin
Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(4):1008-1016.
11. Jaskulka RA, Ittner G, Schedl R. Fractures of the posterior
tibial margin: their role in the prognosis of malleolar fractures. J Trauma. 1989;29(11):1565-1570.
12. LaMothe JM, Baxter JR, Murphy C, Gilbert S, DeSandis B,
Drakos MC. Three-dimensional analysis of fibular motion
after fixation of syndesmotic injuries with a screw or suturebutton construct. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(12):1350-1356.
13. Langenhuijsen JF, Heetveld MJ, Ultee JM, Steller EP,
Butzelaar RM. Results of ankle fractures with involvement of
the posterior tibial margin. J Trauma. 2002;53(1):55-60.
14. Leeds HC, Ehrlich MG. Instability of the distal tibiofibular
syndesmosis after bimalleolar and trimalleolar ankle fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(4):490-503.
15. Liu Q, Zhang K, Zhuang Y, Li Z, Yu B, Pei G. Analysis of
the stress and displacement distribution of inferior tibiofibular
syndesmosis injuries repaired with screw fixation: a finite element study. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e80236.
16. Macko VW, Matthews LS, Zwirkoski P, Goldstein SA. The
joint-contact area of the ankle: the contribution of the posterior malleolus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73(3):347-351.
17. McDaniel WJ, Wilson FC. Trimalleolar fractures of the ankle:
an end result study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1977;122:37-45.
18. McKinley TO, Rudert MJ, Tochigi Y, et al. Incongruitydependent changes of contact stress rates in human cadaveric
ankles. J Orthop Trauma. 2006;20(10):732-738.
19. Michelson JD, Waldman B. An axially loaded model of the
ankle after pronation external rotation injury. Clin Orthop
Relat Res. 1996;328:285-293.
20. Miller AN, Barei DP, Iaquinto JM, Ledoux WR, Beingessner
DM. Iatrogenic syndesmosis malreduction via clamp and
screw placement. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;27(2):100-106.
21. Miller AN, Carroll EA, Parker RJ, Boraiah S, Helfet DL,
Lorich DG. Direct visualization for syndesmotic stabilization
of ankle fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(5):419-426.
22. Naqvi GA, Shafqat A, Awan N. Tightrope fixation of ankle
syndesmosis injuries: clinical outcome, complications and
technique modification. Injury. 2012;43(6):838-842.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Foot & Ankle International - June 2017