ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2025
A Review of Syndesmosis Injuries and Preferred Treatment in Football Players.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomechanical comparison of different fixation methods for tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries: a finite element analysis study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Hybrid Fixation for Syndesmotic Stabilisation: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Biomechanical Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewSyndesmotic injuries are common football injuries. The unique demands of football athletes create large magnitude rotational moments about the ankle, even during low impact maneuvers. This review explores the structure and function of the syndesmosis, assesses recent data in football athletes at the professional and collegiate levels regarding epidemiology, describes available treatment options, and provides example cases from the authors' institution. The review concludes with clinical and surgical pearls for the evaluation and treatment of syndesmotic injury. RECENT
findingsIn general, flexible syndesmotic fixation has demonstrated similar clinical outcome scores as rigid fixation. Flexible fixation has demonstrated benefit over rigid fixation in terms of implant failure, hardware removal, and local irritation. Both flexible and rigid fixation remain viable options for treatment of syndesmotic injuries yet the indications for selecting a construct are often subjective. Certain cases of high-risk football players such as linemen may warrant careful consideration of rigid fixation options despite the clinical advantages of flexible fixation. During fixation, direct visualization techniques with open or arthroscopic assistance for reduction of the syndesmosis remain superior and enable diagnosis of chondral defects. Flexible and rigid syndesmotic fixation techniques are viable for treatment of unstable syndesmotic injuries in athletes. Recent literature favors flexible fixation. However, at-risk football athletes or those with length unstable fibula fractures may benefit from rigid or supplemental flexible fixation as opposed to traditional flexible fixation. We recommend direct visualization of reduction at the syndesmosis during surgical treatment of unstable ankle injuries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.