Early Versus Delayed Mobilization Post-Operative Protocols for Primary Lateral Ankle Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction. Lateral ankle instability represents a common orthopaedic diagnosis. Nonoperative treatment through focused physical therapy provides satisfactory results in most patients. However, some patients experience persistent chronic lateral ankle instability despite appropriate nonoperative treatment. These patients may require stabilization which can include primary lateral ligament reconstruction with a graft to restore ankle stability. Optimal post-operative rehabilitation of lateral ankle ligament reconstruction remains unknown, as surgeons vary in how long they immobilize their patients post-operatively. The aim of this review is to provide insight into early mobilization (EM) versus delayed mobilization (DM) post-operative protocols in patients undergoing primary lateral ankle ligament reconstructions to determine if an optimal evidence-based post-operative rehabilitation protocol exists in the literature. Methods. Following PRIMSA criteria, a systematic review/meta-analysis using the PubMed/Ovid Medline database was performed (10/11/1947-1/28/2020). Manuscripts that were duplicates, non-lateral ligament repair, biomechanical and non-English language were excluded. Protocols were reviewed and divided into two categories; early mobilization (within 3 weeks of surgery) and delayed mobilization (after 3 weeks of surgery). Functional outcome scores (AOFAS, Karlsson scores), radiographic measurements (anterior drawer, talar tilt) and complications evaluated using weighted mean differences (pre- and post-operative scores) and mixed-effect models. Results. After our search, we found 12 out of 1,574 studies that met the criteria for the final analysis, representing 399 patients undergoing lateral ankle reconstruction. Using weighted mean differences the DM group showed superior AOFAS functional scores compared to the EM group; 28.0 (5.5) vs. 26.3 (0.0) respectively, p < 0.001; although sample size was small. Conversely, no significant differences were found for Karlsson functional score (p = 0.246). With regards to radiographic outcome, no significant differences were observed; anterior drawer was p = 0.244 and talar tilt was p = 0.937. A meta-analysis using mixed-effects models confirmed these results, although heterogeneity was high. Conclusions. While there were some conflicting results, findings suggest that EM post-operative protocols for patients undergoing lateral ankle ligament reconstruction may not compromise functional outcomes or post-operative stability. Because heterogeneity was high, future studies are still needed to evaluate these protocols in less diverse patient groups and/or more consistent techniques for lateral ankle ligament reconstruction.

Biomechanics of Ankle Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study to Compare Stability of Reconstruction Techniques Using 1 or 2 Fibular Tunnels

Background: Anatomic lateral ankle ligament reconstruction has been proposed for patients with chronic ankle instability. A reliable approach is a reconstruction technique using an allograft and 2 fibular tunnels. A recently introduced approach that entails 1–fibular tunnel reconstruction might reduce the risk of intraoperative complications and ultimately improve patient outcome. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that both reconstruction techniques show similar ankle stability (joint laxity and stiffness) and are similar to the intact joint condition. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 10 Thiel-conserved cadaveric ankles were divided into 2 groups and tested in 3 stages—intact, transected, and reconstructed lateral ankle ligaments—using either the 1– or the 2–fibular tunnel technique. To quantify stability in each stage, anterior drawer and talar tilt tests were performed in 0°, 10°, and 20° of plantarflexion (anterior drawer test) or dorsiflexion (talar tilt test). Bone displacements were measured using motion capture, from which laxity and stiffness were calculated together with applied forces. Finally, reconstructed ligaments were tested to failure in neutral position with a maximal applicable torque in inversion. A mixed linear model was used to describe and compare the outcomes. Results: When ankle stability of intact and reconstructed ligaments was compared, no significant difference was found between reconstruction techniques for any flexion angle. Also, no significant difference was found when the maximal applicable torque of the 1-tunnel technique (9.1 ± 4.4 N·m) was compared with the 2-tunnel technique (8.9 ± 4.8 N·m). Conclusion: Lateral ankle ligament reconstruction with an allograft using 1 fibular tunnel demonstrated similar biomechanical stability to the 2-tunnel approach. Clinical Relevance: Demonstrating similar stability in a cadaveric study and given the potential to reduce intraoperative complications, the 1–fibular tunnel approach should be considered a viable option for the surgical therapy of chronic ankle instability. Clinical randomized prospective trials are needed to determine the clinical outcome of the 1-tunnel approach.

Arthroscopy in Lateral Ankle Ligament Stabilization Surgery: Costs, Complications, Intra-Articular Defect Diagnosis, and Reoperations

Category: Ankle, Arthroscopy Introduction/Purpose: Lateral ankle ligament stabilization may be performed with concomitant arthroscopy. Arthroscopy has been shown to aid in the diagnosis of intra-articular defects that often accompany lateral ankle ligament injuries. This study compares the differences in cost, complications, newly diagnosed intra-articular defects, and reoperations among patients with ankle sprain/chronic instability who underwent lateral ankle ligament repair/reconstruction with or without concomitant arthroscopic procedures. Methods: Data was collected from the PearlDiver Technologies Humana dataset using CPT and ICD9/10 codes. Patients included in this study (n=2,428) had records of ankle sprain or ankle instability prior to or on the same day as one of two procedures: lateral ankle ligament repair (n=1,236) or lateral ankle ligament reconstruction (n=1,211). This population was subdivided by whether patients had records of arthroscopic procedure(s) on the same day as the ligament surgery. This yielded four groups: repair with arthroscopy (n=314), repair without arthroscopy (n=922), reconstruction with arthroscopy (n=473), reconstruction without arthroscopy (n=738). Cost, complications, newly diagnosed intra-articular defects, and reoperations were assessed. Results: Cost was higher for arthroscopy groups: repair with arthroscopy ($5,991.32) versus repair without arthroscopy ($3,677.11; p<0.001); reconstruction with arthroscopy ($5,744.83) versus reconstruction without arthroscopy ($4,601.13; p=0.001). Proportionately more patients had complications in the repair without arthroscopy group than in the repair with arthroscopy group (9.87%, 5.41%; p=0.013). Proportionately more patients had newly-diagnosed intra-articular defects in arthroscopy groups: repair with arthroscopy (57.0%) versus repair without arthroscopy (35.6%; p<0.001); reconstruction with arthroscopy (63.0%) versus reconstruction without arthroscopy (39.8%; p<0.001). Proportionately more patients underwent reoperation for intra-articular defects in the combined arthroscopy group (6.89%) than in the combined non-arthroscopy group (4.18%; p=0.006). The average time until reoperation for intra-articular defects was shorter in the combined arthroscopy group (302.536 days) than in the combined non-arthroscopy group (473.886 days; p=0.045). Conclusion: Concomitant arthroscopy with lateral ankle ligament surgery is more expensive but does not appear to increase the overall complication rate and may allow surgeons to diagnose and treat more intra-articular pathology. Among patients requiring reoperation for intra-articular defects, the average time to reoperation was over 5 months shorter for patients receiving arthroscopy than for patients who did not receive arthroscopy.