ReviewCureus2026
Dynamic Versus Stable Fixation of Distal Tibiofibular Joint Injuries: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Functional Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Syndesmotic injuries are associated with chronic instability, persistent pain, and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Management typically involves either static fixation with screws or dynamic fixation with suture button devices. While static fixation has historically been the standard of care, dynamic fixation allows for the preservation of physiological joint micromotion at the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis and may thus improve functional outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in June 2025 using only PubMed and Google Scholar and no additional databases. Only prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult patients with syndesmotic injuries were included. Four RCTs comprising 250 patients were ultimately selected. Data were extracted using Covidence, risk of bias was assessed with RevMan 5.4.1, and pooled outcomes were analyzed using a random-effects model. Functional outcomes were measured using the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score and the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS); the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to measure and compare postoperative pain. Dynamic fixation demonstrated comparable AOFAS scores (mean difference = 3.14; 95% CI: -5.34 to 11.62; p = 0.47, I² = 96%) and significantly higher OMAS scores (mean difference = 5.70; 95% CI: 0.33-11.08, p = 0.04, I² = 79%) compared with static fixation, though clinically meaningful thresholds were not met. Patients treated with dynamic fixation also reported lower pain scores (VAS mean difference = -0.77; 95% CI: -1.27 to -0.27; p = 0.003, I² = 52%). Risk of bias was low to moderate, with limitations primarily related to incomplete blinding. Dynamic fixation for syndesmotic injuries is associated with superior functional outcomes and reduced postoperative pain compared to static screw fixation. However, the substantial heterogeneity observed across pooled estimates, particularly for AOFAS (I² = 96%), limits confidence in these findings and precludes definitive conclusions. Larger RCTs with standardized postoperative protocols and reduced methodological variability are needed before guideline recommendations can be made.
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.