Table 1.
Comparison of Ankles With and Without Axial Loading (AL) and With AL and CAM Boot in Different Ligamentous Conditionsa
| Without AL (1) | With AL (2) | With AL + CAM boot (3) | P (1 vs 2) | P (2 vs 3) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a, mm | |||||
| Intact ankle | 3.68 ± 1.00 | 4.05 ± 1.11 | 3.87 ± 1.43 | .046 | .313 |
| AiTFL | 3.85 ± 1.24 | 4.06 ± 1.14 | 4.13 ± 0.67 | .612 | .953 |
| AiTFL + IOL | 4.46 ± 0.87 | 4.31 ± 0.68 | 4.16 ± 1.21 | .122 | .262 |
| b, mm | |||||
| Intact ankle | 7.58 ± 1.80 | 7.55 ± 1.82 | 7.33 ± 2.10 | .683 | .260 |
| AiTFL | 7.57 ± 2.15 | 7.10 ± 1.91 | 7.22 ± 2.16 | .097 | .683 |
| AiTFL + IOL | 7.19 ± 2.17 | 7.20 ± 1.98 | 7.32 ± 2.43 | .905 | .721 |
| c, mm | |||||
| Intact ankle | 2.01 ± 0.47 | 2.09 ± 0.39 | 1.96 ± 0.50 | .371 | .176 |
| AiTFL | 1.98 ± 0.55 | 2.06 ± 0.61 | 1.98 ± 0.54 | .622 | .281 |
| AiTFL + IOL | 2.06 ± 0.64 | 2.12 ± 0.57 | 1.88 ± 0.39 | .509 | .064 |
| A1, deg | |||||
| Intact ankle | –8.31 ± 6.54 | –7.98 ± 5.76 | –8.49 ± 6.44 | .575 | .444 |
| AiTFL | –6.76 ± 5.59 | –7.80 ± 5.82 | –8.39 ± 6.96 | .046 | .541 |
| AiTFL + IOL | –6.08 ± 4.23 | –7.27 ± 5.00 | –6.75 ± 5.64 | .038 | .161 |
| A2, deg | |||||
| Intact ankle | 8.63 ± 5.03 | 8.73 ± 4.35 | 9.71 ± 5.19 | .919 | .053 |
| AiTFL | 9.11 ± 4.32 | 8.40 ± 3.96 | 11.17 ± 3.65 | .123 | .009 |
| AiTFL + IOL | 9.15 ± 4.11 | 8.81 ± 3.86 | 11.97 ± 4.22 | .341 | .005 |
aHorizontal rows display each measurement (a, b, c, A1, and A2) and the different ligamentous conditions from intact ankle until both AiTFL and IOL ruptured. Data are presented as mean ± SD. Bold values indicate statistically significant difference (P < .01). AiTFL, anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament; CAM, controlled ankle motion; IOL, interosseous ligament.