Ankle Syndesmosis Fixation

Foot & AnkleAdvancedCore Procedure

Ankle Syndesmosis Fixation

Surgical technique guide for fixation of the disrupted distal tibiofibular syndesmosis in ankle fractures and high ankle sprains — intra-operative testing, reduction, screw versus suture-button fixation, malreduction recognition, and post-operative rehabilitation

High-yield overview

Syndesmotic screw or suture-button fixation of the disrupted distal tibiofibular joint in Weber C fractures and high ankle sprains | advanced

Surgical Imaging

Syndesmotic fixation with fibular plate and screws
Syndesmotic injury stabilised with a fibular plate and syndesmotic screws passing across to the tibia, restoring the distal tibiofibular relationship.Credit: AI-generated medical illustration · OrthoVellum
Critical Danger Structures and Exam Traps
Syndesmotic Malreduction — The Hidden Complication

The trap: Relying on indirect reduction (clamping the fibula to the tibia) and checking only AP and mortise fluoroscopy views to confirm reduction. CT studies show indirect reduction produces malreduction in up to 52% of cases.

The fix: Directly visualise the fibular reduction within the incisura — either through the existing fibular fracture site, through a small anterolateral arthrotomy to expose the AITFL and anterior incisura, or use intra-operative CT. Obtain a contralateral ankle CT pre-operatively as a reference template for the native incisura anatomy.

Fixing Before Reducing the Fibula

The trap: Placing syndesmotic fixation before confirming anatomic fibular length and rotation. A shortened or malrotated fibula forces the talus into an abnormal position within the mortise and produces persistent syndesmotic malreduction even with perfect screw placement.

The fix: Restore fibular anatomy with plate osteosynthesis FIRST. Confirm fibular length (radiographic: the fibular shadow should align within 1-2 mm of the tibial shadow on the AP view, and the talocrural angle should match the contralateral side), rotation (check the relationship of the fibula to the lateral tibial groove), and the incisura relationship before any syndesmotic fixation.

Screw Breakage from Early Weight-Bearing

The trap: Allowing the patient to weight-bear on a syndesmotic screw without clear instructions. Syndesmotic screws are positional screws, not lag screws — they are designed to hold reduction while the ligaments heal, not to bear load. Weight-bearing on a rigid screw fixation leads to screw breakage in 10-30% of cases.

The fix: Strict non-weight-bearing for 6-8 weeks with a below-knee plaster or boot for syndesmotic screw fixation. If earlier weight-bearing is desired, use a suture-button (TightRope) construct, which is dynamic and permits physiological micromotion. Document the fixation type and weight-bearing protocol clearly.

Missed Posterior Malleolar / PITFL Injury

The trap: Fixing the lateral side only without recognising a significant posterior malleolar fracture (greater than 25% of articular surface) with attached PITFL. The PITFL is the primary restraint to posterior tibiofibular translation — an unrepaired PITFL injury leaves the syndesmosis unstable regardless of anterior screw placement.

The fix: Assess the posterior malleolus on CT in all Weber C fractures and high ankle sprains. Fix posterior malleolar fractures involving the PITFL attachment and greater than 25% of the articular surface through a posterolateral approach. In some cases, posterior malleolar fixation alone restores syndesmotic stability without a separate syndesmotic screw.

Over-Compression of the Syndesmosis

The trap: Tightening syndesmotic screw(s) with the ankle in maximum dorsiflexion (tightens the syndesmosis around the wider anterior talar dome) without accounting for individual ankle anatomy. This can over-compress the syndesmosis, restrict talar motion, and cause impingement or early arthritis.

The fix: Clamp and fix the syndesmosis in neutral or slight dorsiflexion (10-15 degrees) rather than maximum dorsiflexion. Verify the medial clear space on the mortise view after fixation — it should equal the contralateral side (normally 2-4 mm). Excessive tightening of a suture-button construct can also over-compress; use finger-tight approximation and confirm fluoroscopically.

Testing Syndesmotic Stability Without Fibular Fixation

The trap: Performing the hook test or external rotation stress test BEFORE achieving anatomic fibular fixation. An unfixed, shortened, or malrotated fibula gives a false-positive instability test — the syndesmosis appears unstable when the real problem is the fibula.

The fix: Always reduce and fix the fibula with plate osteosynthesis FIRST. Then, with the fibular plate in situ, reassess syndesmotic stability using the hook test, external rotation stress test, and Cotton test under fluoroscopy. Only proceed to syndesmotic fixation if instability is confirmed AFTER anatomic fibular restoration.

Mnemonic

R.E.D.U.C.EREDUCE — Syndesmotic Reduction Principles

Mnemonic

F.I.X.E.DFIXED — Fixation Selection and Aftercare

Mnemonic

M.A.L.R.E.DMALRED — Syndesmotic Malreduction Recognition

Surgical Indications

Absolute Indications

  • Weber C or pronation-external rotation (Lauge-Hansen) ankle fracture with confirmed intra-operative syndesmotic instability after anatomic fibular plate fixation — demonstrated by the hook test, external rotation stress test, or Cotton test under fluoroscopy
  • High ankle sprain (isolated syndesmotic disruption) with Grade III instability — complete disruption of the AITFL, PITFL, and interosseous ligament confirmed on MRI or stress radiography, and clinical or radiographic talar shift
  • Syndesmotic diastasis greater than 6 mm on the AP radiograph (compared with the contralateral side) with clinical instability

Relative Indications

  • Maisonneuve fracture (proximal fibular fracture with syndesmotic disruption and medial injury) — fixation of the syndesmosis after anatomic fibular reduction or fixation
  • Chronic syndesmotic instability with persistent pain and confirmed diastasis on weight-bearing CT or stress radiography — delayed reconstruction using suture-button or screw with ligamentous repair
  • Ankle fracture with associated posterior malleolar fracture involving greater than 25% of the articular surface and PITFL disruption where posterior fixation alone does not restore syndesmotic stability on intra-operative testing

Contraindications

Absolute:

  • Syndesmotic instability that resolves after anatomic fibular plate fixation — do not over-fix a stable syndesmosis
  • Active deep infection or open fracture contamination at the planned fixation site
  • Significant tibial plafond or pilon fracture that precludes accurate syndesmotic assessment

Relative:

  • Poor skin condition or significant soft tissue compromise at the lateral ankle (delay fixation until soft tissue recovery)
  • Severe osteoporosis where screw purchase is unreliable (consider suture-button or larger diameter screws with bicortical purchase)
  • Patient non-compliance with weight-bearing restrictions (suture-button may be preferred over screw fixation)

Intra-operative Syndesmotic Instability Tests

Hook Test

  • Technique: After anatomic fibular plate fixation, insert a bone hook or clamp around the distal fibula and apply lateral traction while viewing the syndesmosis on fluoroscopy
  • Positive finding: Lateral translation of the fibula away from the tibia (widening of the tibiofibular clear space greater than 5 mm compared to the fixed position) with lateral traction
  • Limitations: Operator-dependent force; does not detect pure rotational instability; may give false-negative if AITFL is partially intact
  • Evidence: Widely used and accepted as a standard intra-operative test; sensitivity and specificity vary by study but it is a reliable practical bedside tool

External Rotation Stress Test

  • Technique: Apply external rotation force to the foot (or the talus directly) while the ankle is held in neutral or slight dorsiflexion, under fluoroscopic imaging of the mortise view
  • Positive finding: Widening of the medial clear space greater than 5 mm (or greater than 2 mm compared to the contralateral side) on the mortise view with external rotation
  • Limitations: Requires adequate imaging quality; medial clear space interpretation depends on the quality of the medial-sided repair (if deltoid is ruptured); a valgus stress component may produce a false-positive in pure deltoid insufficiency
  • Evidence: Considered the most specific test for syndesmotic instability when performed after fibular fixation; best assessed on the mortise view

Cotton Test

  • Technique: Apply lateral or medial talar shift force (manual or with a laminar spreader) under fluoroscopy while viewing the mortise view
  • Positive finding: Asymmetric talar shift within the mortise; widening of the medial clear space suggesting residual instability despite lateral fixation
  • Limitations: Does not isolate syndesmotic instability from pure deltoid incompetence; lateral talar shift may occur from deltoid rupture alone
  • Evidence: Useful adjunct but least specific of the three tests — interpret in conjunction with the hook test and external rotation stress test

Trampoline Test (Ballottlement)

  • Technique: With the ankle in neutral, palpate the anteroinferior tibiofibular ligament (AITFL) region. Press on the fibula laterally — a springy or bouncy feel (like a trampoline) indicates disruption of the AITFL and syndesmotic instability
  • Positive finding: Loss of normal firm resistance; a spongy, springy feel when the fibula is depressed laterally
  • Limitations: Subjective and examiner-dependent; does not quantify the degree of instability
  • Evidence: Described in clinical practice as a useful adjunct; most valuable when combined with fluoroscopic stress testing

Evidence for Fixation Methods

Syndesmotic Screws

Positional screw fixation (3.5 or 4.5 mm cortical screw) is the historical gold standard for syndesmotic stabilisation. The screw is placed through the fibula into the tibia at a level 2-4 cm above the tibial plafond (above the synovial reflection), angled 25-30 degrees anteriorly in the coronal plane.

  • Quadricortical fixation (4 cortices): Screw engages both tibial cortices and both fibular cortices — provides rigid fixation but eliminates all physiological tibiofibular motion. Screws frequently break with weight-bearing (10-30% rate).
  • Tricortical fixation (3 cortices): Screw engages both fibular cortices and the medial tibial cortex only — leaves the lateral tibial cortex free, permitting some tibiofibular motion. Theoretically lower breakage rate but higher risk of loosening. Less commonly used.
  • Number of screws: Biomechanical studies show two screws (placed at 2 cm and 3-4 cm above the plafond) provide greater torsional stability than one screw. One screw is acceptable in smaller frames or less severe disruptions; two screws are preferred in larger patients and high-energy injuries.
  • Screw removal: Typically removed at 8-12 weeks post-operatively to restore tibiofibular motion and reduce the risk of breakage. The evidence for routine removal is debated — some studies show no difference in outcome with retained screws, but breakage and subsequent removal difficulty are practical concerns. Removal carries a small risk of re-diastasis.

Suture-Button Fixation (TightRope)

A suture-button device (e.g. TightRope, ZipTight) passes a fibre-wire loop through 4-cortex drill holes (fibula to tibia) and is secured with metallic or bioabsorbable buttons on the lateral fibula and medial tibia.

  • Advantages: Does not require routine removal; allows earlier weight-bearing (protocols vary but many permit partial weight-bearing from 2-4 weeks); provides dynamic flexible fixation that permits physiological tibiofibular micromotion while maintaining reduction
  • Biomechanics: Suture-button constructs match or exceed the stiffness of 3.5 mm quadricortical screws in biomechanical models for resistance to diastasis under physiologic loading; however, they are less stiff under high-load torsional stress
  • Complications: Knot or button irritation over the medial tibial cortex (5-15% of cases — may require later removal of the button); skin irritation or wound problems at the button site; rare device failure or breakage
  • Evidence: Multiple RCTs and meta-analyses have compared suture-button with screw fixation. Overall, functional outcomes at 1-2 years are comparable between the two methods. Suture-button shows advantages in earlier return to weight-bearing and absence of planned hardware removal.

Syndesmotic Screw versus Suture-Button — Evidence Summary


Key Evidence

Evidence

Randomized Trial Comparing Suture Button with Single Syndesmotic Screw for Syndesmosis Injury

Level I
Andersen MR, Frihagen F, Hellund JC, Madsen JE, Figved WJ Bone Joint Surg Am
Clinical implication: Suture-button fixation is a valid alternative to screw fixation with comparable short-term outcomes and the advantage of earlier weight-bearing and no planned removal surgery.
Evidence

Better outcome for suture button compared with single syndesmotic screw for syndesmosis injury: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial

Level I
Ræder BW, Figved W, Madsen JE, Frihagen F, Jacobsen SB, Andersen MRBone Joint J
Clinical implication: At long-term follow-up, suture-button fixation shows superior outcomes over syndesmotic screw fixation, supporting its use as the preferred fixation method for syndesmotic injuries.
Evidence

The functional consequence of syndesmotic joint malreduction at a minimum 2-year follow-up

Level II
Sagi HC, Shah AR, Sanders RWJ Orthop Trauma
Clinical implication: Anatomic reduction of the syndesmosis within the incisura is the most critical surgical determinant of outcome — fixation method matters less than reduction accuracy. Direct visualisation or intra-operative CT is strongly recommended.
Evidence

A prospective randomised study comparing TightRope and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy and maintenance of syndesmotic reduction assessed with bilateral computed tomography

Level I
Kortekangas T, Savola O, Flinkkilä T, Lepojärvi S, Nortunen S, Ohtonen P, Katisko J, Pakarinen HInjury
Clinical implication: Suture-button fixation provides more accurate and durable reduction of the syndesmosis than screw fixation when assessed with bilateral CT — supporting its use for anatomic reduction.
Evidence

Fixation of ankle syndesmotic injuries: comparison of tightrope fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy of syndesmotic reduction

Level I
Naqvi GA, Cunningham P, Lynch B, Galvin R, Awan NAm J Sports Med
Clinical implication: TightRope suture-button fixation achieves more accurate anatomic reduction of the syndesmosis compared with screw fixation — accurate reduction is the strongest predictor of good outcome.

Clinical Decision Scenarios

Practise clinical reasoning and management decisions out loud

Viva scenarioStandard
Clinical prompt

A 34-year-old man sustains a closed Weber C ankle fracture (SER IV equivalent) with a medial malleolar fracture and a fibular fracture 8 cm above the syndesmosis. After ORIF of the fibula with a plate and screw fixation of the medial malleolus, you perform the external rotation stress test and note 3 mm widening of the medial clear space on the mortise view compared to the contralateral side. Discuss your management.

Practical approach
This patient has a Weber C (pronation-external rotation) ankle fracture with confirmed residual syndesmotic instability after anatomic fibular and medial malleolar fixation. The 3 mm asymmetry in the medial clear space on the external rotation stress view indicates persistent syndesmotic disruption that requires fixation. **Pre-requisite check**: Before committing to syndesmotic fixation, I must confirm that the fibular length and rotation are anatomic. I would check: (1) fibular shadow alignment with the tibial shadow on the AP view (should be within 1-2 mm), (2) the talocrural angle matches the contralateral side, (3) the fibular lateral malleolar tip points directly laterally on the mortise view (no external rotation of the fibular fragment), and (4) the medial malleolar fixation is secure with no gap at the fracture site. If the fibular reduction is in any doubt, I would revise it before addressing the syndesmosis. **Reduction**: I would reduce the syndesmosis with the ankle in neutral dorsiflexion and apply a pointed reduction clamp across the tibiofibular joint at 2 cm above the plafond. Where possible I would directly visualise the incisura — either through the fibular fracture site or through a small anterolateral arthrotomy — to confirm that the fibula sits anatomically within the incisura. I would obtain AP and mortise fluoroscopic views to confirm the tibiofibular clear space is less than 6 mm, tibiofibular overlap is greater than 6 mm, and the medial clear space is symmetric. If intra-operative CT is available, I would use it to confirm the reduction against the contralateral pre-operative CT. **Fixation**: I would place a single 3.5 mm fully threaded quadricortical cortical screw at 2 cm above the tibial plafond, angled 25-30 degrees anteriorly, through the fibular plate. Alternatively, a suture-button (TightRope) device would be a valid choice, particularly if earlier weight-bearing is desirable. In a young active patient with a high-energy injury, two screws or two suture-buttons provide greater rotational stability and I would consider this. **Post-operative**: With screw fixation, strict non-weight-bearing for 6-8 weeks, then screw removal at 8-12 weeks with progressive weight-bearing thereafter. With suture-button, earlier progressive weight-bearing from 2-4 weeks. Both protocols include early ankle range-of-motion exercises. **Critical point**: In this specific scenario, the medial malleolus is already fixed. In Weber C fractures with an intact medial malleolus (deltoid ligament disruption only), the syndesmotic instability assessment is the same, but the deltoid does not require repair if the medial clear space is restored after fibular and syndesmotic fixation.
Viva scenarioAdvanced
Clinical prompt

A 28-year-old professional footballer sustained a syndesmotic injury (high ankle sprain) 4 months ago, treated non-operatively with a boot and physiotherapy. He now presents with persistent lateral ankle pain, inability to sprint, and a positive external rotation stress test on examination. MRI shows a disrupted AITFL with scarring and a 2 mm tibiofibular diastasis on stress views. Discuss the surgical management.

Practical approach
This patient has chronic syndesmotic instability following a high ankle sprain that failed non-operative management. The combination of persistent symptoms, positive stress examination, MRI-confirmed AITFL disruption, and measurable diastasis on stress views are clear indications for surgical reconstruction. **Pre-operative planning**: I would obtain weight-bearing CT of both ankles to quantify the diastasis and characterise the incisura anatomy. The contralateral CT provides the reference template for reduction. I would also assess for chondral damage on MRI — associated osteochondral lesions of the talar dome or tibial plafond change the prognosis and surgical plan. **Surgical approach**: I would use an arthroscopic or open approach. Arthroscopy allows direct assessment of the syndesmotic instability (the fibula can be seen shifting within the incisura on arthroscopic external rotation stress), debridement of scar tissue in the syndesmotic interval, and assessment of chondral surfaces. This is followed by open reduction and suture-button fixation through a mini-open lateral approach. **Fixation**: For chronic instability, a suture-button construct is preferred over screws for several reasons: (1) it provides dynamic flexible fixation that permits normal tibiofibular micromotion — important for a professional athlete, (2) it does not require planned removal (avoids a second procedure and the risk of re-diastasis), and (3) it allows earlier weight-bearing and rehabilitation. I would use two suture-button devices (at 2 cm and 3-4 cm above the plafond) given the chronic nature and the high athletic demands. **Additional steps**: I would debride the scarred AITFL tissue arthroscopically or through an anterolateral arthrotomy to allow the ligament to heal in a reduced position. In some cases, an augmented reconstruction using a free tendon graft (e.g. gracilis or peroneus longus tendon graft passed through bone tunnels to reconstruct the AITFL and IOL) is considered for revision cases or severe chronic instability. **Reduction confirmation**: Direct visualisation of the incisura plus intra-operative CT comparison with the contralateral ankle. In chronic cases, the fibular position within the incisura may have settled into a malreduced position — careful reduction is essential. **Rehabilitation**: Suture-button protocol — touch-weight-bearing for 2 weeks, progressive to full weight-bearing by 6 weeks. Sport-specific rehabilitation begins at 3 months. Return to competitive football at approximately 4-6 months, individualised based on functional testing, strength (greater than 90% of contralateral), and pain-free performance. **Prognosis**: Outcomes for chronic syndesmotic reconstruction with suture-button devices are generally good, with most patients returning to their pre-injury activity level. However, the prognosis is less favourable than acute fixation — early diagnosis and acute treatment give the best results.
Viva scenarioStandard
Clinical prompt

During ORIF of a Weber C ankle fracture, after placing the syndesmotic screw (single 3.5 mm quadricortical at 2 cm above the plafond), you check the mortise view and notice the medial clear space is 5 mm compared to 3 mm on the contralateral pre-operative film. The screw has been tightened and the clamp has been removed. What do you do?

Practical approach
A 2 mm widening of the medial clear space after syndesmotic screw placement, compared to the contralateral side, indicates that the syndesmosis is not adequately reduced or the fixation is not holding the reduction. This requires immediate intra-operative correction before leaving the theatre. **Step 1 — Identify the cause**: The most likely explanation is syndesmotic malreduction — the fibula is not sitting anatomically within the incisura despite the screw being in place. The clamp may have been removed before the screw was fully tightened, or the reduction was never truly anatomic (malreduced under the clamp, which the screw then held in the malreduced position). **Step 2 — Remove the screw and re-assess**: I would remove the syndesmotic screw and re-apply the pointed clamp. Re-check the fibular length and rotation on fluoroscopy — a subtle change in fibular position can occur during clamp manipulation. **Step 3 — Direct visualisation of the incisura**: I would look directly at the incisura through the fibular fracture site or through a small anterolateral arthrotomy. The most common malreduction pattern is anterior subluxation of the fibula (external rotation malreduction) — the fibular cartilage sits anteriorly within the incisura rather than centred. This is the pattern that is hardest to detect on plain fluoroscopy. **Step 4 — Re-reduce and re-check**: Correct the malreduction (typically requires derotating the fibula internally), re-clamp in neutral dorsiflexion, and re-check on AP and mortise fluoroscopy. The medial clear space should equal the contralateral side. If intra-operative CT is available, use it at this point. **Step 5 — Re-fix**: Once anatomic reduction is confirmed, re-drill and re-place the syndesmotic screw at the same or a slightly different trajectory (or use a suture-button device). Perform a final external rotation stress test to confirm stability and re-check all fluoroscopic parameters. **Key lesson**: This scenario illustrates why direct visualisation of the incisura is so important. If I had relied on clamp-and-check fluoroscopy alone, I would have locked in a malreduced syndesmosis with a perfectly placed screw — the screw holds whatever position the fibula is in, correct or not.
Exam day cheat sheet
Ankle Syndesmosis Fixation — Exam Day Summary

References

Evidence

Randomized Trial Comparing Suture Button with Single Syndesmotic Screw for Syndesmosis Injury

Level I
Andersen MR, Frihagen F, Hellund JC, Madsen JE, Figved WJ Bone Joint Surg Am
Clinical implication: Suture-button fixation is a valid alternative to screw fixation with comparable short-term outcomes and the advantage of earlier weight-bearing and no planned removal surgery.
Evidence

Better outcome for suture button compared with single syndesmotic screw for syndesmosis injury: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial

Level I
Ræder BW, Figved W, Madsen JE, Frihagen F, Jacobsen SB, Andersen MRBone Joint J
Clinical implication: At long-term follow-up, suture-button fixation shows superior outcomes over syndesmotic screw fixation, supporting its use as the preferred fixation method for syndesmotic injuries.
Evidence

The functional consequence of syndesmotic joint malreduction at a minimum 2-year follow-up

Level II
Sagi HC, Shah AR, Sanders RWJ Orthop Trauma
Clinical implication: Anatomic reduction is the most critical determinant of outcome — fixation method is secondary to reduction accuracy.
Evidence

A prospective randomised study comparing TightRope and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy and maintenance of syndesmotic reduction assessed with bilateral computed tomography

Level I
Kortekangas T, Savola O, Flinkkilä T, Lepojärvi S, Nortunen S, Ohtonen P, Katisko J, Pakarinen HInjury
Clinical implication: Suture-button fixation provides more accurate and durable reduction of the syndesmosis than screw fixation when assessed with bilateral CT.
Evidence

Fixation of ankle syndesmotic injuries: comparison of tightrope fixation and syndesmotic screw fixation for accuracy of syndesmotic reduction

Level I
Naqvi GA, Cunningham P, Lynch B, Galvin R, Awan NAm J Sports Med
Clinical implication: TightRope suture-button fixation achieves more accurate anatomic reduction of the syndesmosis compared with screw fixation — accurate reduction is the strongest predictor of good outcome.
Editorially reviewed — transparent references and correction processPublished by OrthoVellum Medical Education TeamEditorial boardMethodologyReview policy
Educational disclosure

Educational content is reviewed for source visibility, editorial coherence, and correction readiness.

No individual clinician credential is claimed unless a named person is shown.

Verify before clinical use; this is not medical advice or a substitute for local guidance.