Comparison of Short‐Term Efficacy Between Arthroscopic Broström Repair With and Without Suture Tape Augmentation for Acute Anterior Talofibular Ligament Tears

Background Acute anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) tears frequently cause chronic ankle instability (CAI). Arthroscopic Broström repair (ABR) is effective, but outcomes may be inferior in cases with poor tissue quality. Suture tape (ST) augmentation has been introduced to improve biomechanical stability, especially for compromised tissue. Although arthroscopic Broström repair with suture tape augmentation (ABR‐ST) versus ABR have been compared for CAI, their short‐term efficacy in acute ATFL tears remains understudied. This study compares outcomes (American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society [AOFAS], American Association of Foot and Ankle Surgery score, Visual Analog Scale [VAS] pain scores, the anterior talar translation [ATT], the talar tilt angle [TTA], return to sport [RTS], and complications) between ABR and ABR‐ST for acute ATFL tears, analyzing the impact of tissue quality on efficacy. Objective Comparative analysis of the outcomes of Broström repair versus Broström repair with ST augmentation for the treatment of acute ATFL tears under arthroscopy. Methods A total of 119 patients with acute ATFL tears were retrospectively identified from the Department of Sports Medicine at our hospital between January 2020 and June 2022. Groups were designated according to actual surgical intervention: 59 received ABR‐ST (Observation group) and 60 underwent ABR (Control group). The tissue quality of the ATFL was assessed using arthroscopic exploration and MRI and classified into a good‐quality group (Group A) and a poor‐quality group (Group B). After 1‐year treatment, AOFAS and American Association of Foot and Ankle Surgery scores were used to assess the function of the ankle joint; VAS pain scores were used to quantify the degree of pain; the ATT and the TTA were used to assess the forward instability of the ankle joint and record the recovery time after surgery (RTS) of the two groups of patients and the occurrence of complications (such as infection, nerve damage, and thrombosis). Results Regardless of with or without ST augmentation, patients with good tissue quality (Group A) showed significantly higher postoperative AOFAS scores than those with poor tissue quality (Group B) ( p < 0.05). Furthermore, the observation group demonstrated significantly higher AOFAS scores than the control group in both tissue quality categories (Groups A and B) ( p < 0.05). Both repair techniques significantly reduced VAS scores in Groups A and B compared to pretreatment levels ( p < 0.05). Within each technique, Group A had significantly lower VAS scores than Group B ( p < 0.05). Additionally, the observation group exhibited significantly lower VAS scores than the control group for both Group A and Group B patients ( p < 0.05). ATT and TTA were significantly reduced postoperatively in all groups ( p < 0.05). The decreases in ATT and TTA were significantly greater in the observation group than in the control group ( p < 0.001). The Broström repair technique resulted in a higher RTS for both Groups A and B compared to the ST augmentation technique ( p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the total postoperative complication rate between the observation and control groups ( p > 0.05). Conclusion ABR and ABR‐ST augmentation can effectively improve clinical symptoms. Compared with Broström repair, the clinical efficacy of Broström repair with ST augmentation is better, and Broström repair with ST augmentation had a more significant effect on patients with poor tissue quality.