No abstract

Anatomical, Level V.

No abstract

Diagnosis and management of isolated syndesmotic injuries are controversial and highly debated. Hence, the aim of this study is to explore and gain the current understanding pertaining to detailed anatomy of syndesmotic ligaments through a systematic review of published cadaveric studies. A systematic review was conducted online for literature published in English using PubMed and Google Scholar, as per PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, up to April 30, 2019. Predefined eligibility criteria were applied, and the data thus compiled was analyzed. Study quality was assessed based on Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale. A total of 12 studies reporting 365 ankles were included in this review. Considerable inconsistency in the naming and description of syndesmotic ligaments was observed, with only 2 studies reporting the vasculature of the ligaments. Hence further investigation of the anatomy of the syndesmotic ligaments is recommended so as to better inform clinical practice, as awareness of anatomy is critical for assessment, healing, and successful surgical management. Levels of Evidence: Level III: Systematic review of anatomical dissections

Syndesmotic sprains or high ankle sprains are reported to be associated with increasing morbidity and time loss. The aim of this study was to critically appraise literature on epidemiology of syndesmotic sprains through systematic review of published literatures. A systematic review was conducted online for literature published in English using PubMed and Google Scholar, as per PRISMA guidelines up to April 30, 2019. Predefined eligibility criteria were applied, and the data thus compiled were analyzed. A total of 26 studies were found to be eligible, of which three-fourths involved sporting population. Considerable inconsistency in assessment procedure reporting, injury and injury severity definition with variable unit measures used to describe incidence or injury rate was observed. Meta-analysis and intra- and intersports comparison could not be performed owing to the study heterogeneity and methodological variability. There is a need for standardization in future research, specifically with regard to injury assessment and reporting, demanding heightened awareness and improved diagnostic modalities, as injury epidemiology is integral to the overall injury-prevention conundrum. Levels of Evidence: Systematic review, Level III