• 대한족부족관절학회지
• /
• 제5권1호
• /
• pp.5-12
• /
• 2001

Purpose: To find out the priority of which procedure has had a better outcome both clinically and radiographically between the two groups, one is treated by primary repair and the other by modified Brostr$\ddot{o}$m's procedure, by comparing the postoperative ankle joint stability and the patient's degree of satisfaction. Material and methods: 16 cases were taken into consideration whose number of severed ligaments were at least two or more of the lateral collateral ligaments of the ankle, and also were confirmed intraoperatively. Among them, 8 cases were treated with primary repair and the other 8 cases were treated with primary repair and the other 8 cases by modified Brostr$\ddot{o}$m's procedure. Results: There was no distinguishable difference for the patient's degree of satisfaction between the two procedures above mentioned. In 3 cases treated with primary repair, functional instability was observed. In case of postoperative ankle joint stability, 7 of 8 cases treated by modified Brostr$\ddot{o}$m's procedure has revealed increased joint stability. And 3 of 8 cases which were treated by primary repair have showed postoperative residual instability. Conclusion: Actually, the severed ligament can not maintain its normal strength though several months has elapsed, and possible residual instability could be remained. Therefore, it can be expected that modified Brostr$\ddot{o}$m's procedure also would be a .good method in obtaining suitable ankle joint stability as well as subtalar joint stability because of its reinforcement using extensor retinaculum.