Aims. In approximately 20% of patients with ankle fractures, there is an concomitant injury to the syndesmosis which requires stabilisation, usually with one or more syndesmotic screws. The aim of this review is to evaluate whether removal of the syndesmotic screw is required in order for the patient to obtain optimal functional recovery. Materials and Methods. A literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library for articles in which the syndesmotic screw was retained. Articles describing both removal and retaining of syndesmotic screws were included. Excluded were biomechanical studies, studies not providing patient related outcome measures, case reports, studies on skeletally immature patients and reviews. No restrictions regarding year of publication and language were applied. Results. A total of 329 studies were identified, of which nine were of interest, and another two articles were added after screening the references. In all, two randomised controlled trials (RCT) and nine case-control series were found. The two RCTs found no difference in functional outcome between routine removal and retaining the syndesmotic screw. All but one of the case-control series found equal or better outcomes when the syndesmotic screw was retained. However, all included studies had substantial methodological flaws. Conclusions. The currently available literature does not support routine elective removal of syndesmotic screws. However, the literature is of insufficient quality to be able to draw definitive conclusions. Secondary procedures incur a provider and institutional cost and expose the patient to the risk of complications. Therefore, in the absence of high quality evidence there appears to be little justification for routine removal of syndesmotic screws. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1497–1504

Supination-external rotation (SER) fractures of the ankle may present with a medial ligamentous injury that is not apparent on the initial radiographs. A cadaver gravity-stress view has been described, but the manual-stress view is considered to be the examination of choice for the diagnosis of medial injuries. We prospectively compared the efficacy of these two examinations.

We undertook both examinations in 29 patients with SER fractures. Of these, 16 (55%) were stress-positive, i.e. and had widening of the medial clear space of > 4 mm with a mean medial clear space of 6.09 mm (4.4 to 8.1) on gravity-stress and 5.81 mm (4.0 to 8.2) on manual-stress examination, and 13 patients (45%) were stress-negative with a mean medial clear space of 3.91 mm (3.3 to 5.1) and 3.61 mm (2.6 to 4.5) on examination of gravity- and manual-stress respectively. The mean absolute visual analgoue scale score for discomfort in the examination of gravity stress was 3.45 (1 to 6) and in the manual-stress procedure 6.14 (3 to 10).

We have shown that examination of gravity-stress is as reliable and perceived as more comfortable than that of manual stress. We recommend using it as the initial diagnostic screening examination for the detection of occult medial ligamentous injuries in SER fractures of the ankle.