A comparison of double single suture-button fixation,suture-button fixation,and screw fixation for ankle syndesmosis injury: A retrospective cohort study

Different methods have been used throughout the years for syndesmotic injury but there is no consensus on the ideal treatment. Some methods are expensive and some have more complications. The aim of this study is to compare single suture endobutton with double suture endobutton and screw fixation for syndesmotic injury.Sixty nine patients with syndesmotic injury with fibular fractures whom were treated with a single interosseous suture endobutton system (ZipTight^TM, Zimmer Biomet), a double interosseous suture endobutton system (ZipTight^TM, Zimmer Biomet) and 1 syndesmotic screw (TST, Istanbul, Turkey) were included in this study. Functional and radiological results from patient records between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively evaluated.Twenty patients were treated with the double interosseous suture endobutton, 23 were treated with the single interosseous suture endobutton, and 26 were treated with traditional AO screw fixation. Three patients from the screw fixation group (11.5%) required revision surgery (P < .05). All the radiologic and clinical outcomes were statistical similar in all 3 groups.Our findings showed that the interosseous suture endobutton system is at least as safe as the screw fixation technique for treatment of syndesmosis joint injuries and can be used as an alternative to the screw method. The interosseous suture endobutton system eliminates the need for a second surgery to remove the hardware, which minimizes the probability of re-diastasis. Since our results showed no statistical difference between single and double interosseous suture endobutton systems, the less costly single endobutton system may be the better alternative.     

Pseudoathetosis: report of three patients.

We report on 3 patients with pseudoathetosis, which are involuntary, slow, writhing movements due to loss of proprioception.     

Familial occurrence of testicular cancer

A case of testicular cancer in 2 brothers is reported and a review of the literature about testicular malignancies and etiologic factors in closely related family members is given. The familial incidence of testicular tumor is found to be 3% in twins and 0.6-2.1% in less closely related men. Tumors were of the same histology in 70-77% of the twins, whereas in brothers and in other degrees of relationship tumors of different histology mostly occur. Following the diagnosis of the tumor in the first man, the average interval to presentation of the tumor in the relative was 3.7 years in twins, 7.7 years in nontwin brothers and 13.5 years for less closely related men. The need for a thorough checkup of other family members is advised.