Consensus In Chronic Ankle Instability OTSR CAI 20131

: Pdf Otsr Consensus Cai 20131 OTSR_CONSENSUS_CAI_20131 1 2014 pdf

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 9

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (2013) 99S, S411—S419

Available online at

ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com

REVIEW ARTICLE

Consensus in chronic ankle instability:
Aetiology, assessment, surgical indications
and place for arthroscopy
S. Guillo a, T. Bauer b,∗, J.W. Lee c, M. Takao d, S.W. Kong e,
J.W. Stone f, P.G. Mangone g, A. Molloy h, A. Perera i,
C.J. Pearce j, F. Michels k, Y. Tourné l, A. Ghorbani m, J. Calder n
a

Clinique du Sport, 33300 Mérignac, France
Department of Orthopaedic surgery, Ambroise Paré Hospital, 92100 Boulogne Billancourt, France
c
Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yonsei-ro 50, Seodaemoon-gu, 120-752 Seoul, South Korea
d
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Teikyo University School of Medicine 2-11-1 Kaga, Itabashi, 173-8605
Tokyo, Japan
e
Foot and Ankle Surgery Specialist in Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Asia Medical Specialists, Asia
f
Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI USA
g
Blue Ridge Bone and Joint ClinicAsheville, NC 28801 Director, Foot and Ankle, Orthopaedic Surgery
Service Line, Mission Hospital, Asheville, NC 28801
h
University Hospital Aintree, Lower Lane Liverpool L9 7AL UK
i
University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff UK. Spire Cardiff Hospital and London Foot and Ankle Centre
j
Jurong Healthcare, Alexandra Hospital Singapore 159964
k
Orthopaedic Department AZ Groeninge Burg, Vercruysselaan 5, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium
l
15, rue de la République, 38000 Grenoble, France
m
Clinique Médipole Garonne, 45, rue de Gironis, 31036 Toulouse, France
n
Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, 369 Fulham Road, London SW10 9NH, UK The Fortius Clinic, 17
Fitzhardinge St, London W1H 6EQ, UK
b

Accepted: 9 October 2013

KEYWORDS
Ankle sprain;
Ankle instability;
Lateral ligament
injury;
Anterior talo-fibula
ligament;
Ankle arthroscopy
∗

Summary Ankle sprains are the most common injuries sustained during sports activities. Most
ankle sprains recover fully with non-operative treatment but 20—30% develop chronic ankle
instability. Predicting which patients who sustain an ankle sprain will develop instability is
difficult. This paper summarises a consensus on identifying which patients may require surgery,
the optimal surgical intervention along with treatment of concomitant pathology given the
evidence available today. It also discusses the role of arthroscopic treatment and the anatomical
basis for individual procedures.
Proof of evidence: 4.
© 2013 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: th.bauer@orange.fr (T. Bauer).

1877-0568/$ – see front matter © 2013 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2013.10.009

S412

Aetiology of chronic ankle instability
The main predisposing factor for the development of chronic
ankle instability (CAI) is the history of at least one previous
lateral ankle sprain [1—3]. There is no correlation between
the severity of the initial sprain as judged at the time of
injury and the frequency of residual instability [2]. The risk
of developing CAI is as great after a single severe ankle
sprain as after one or multiple minor sprains. Thus, there
are other factors contributing to the development of CAI.
It is estimated that as many as 55% of patients who sustain an ankle sprain do not seek evaluation or treatment
from a healthcare professional [4]. The absence of treatment after an ankle sprain predisposes to residual symptoms
including CAI [5]. With respect to giving-way and return to
sport, improved stability with faster recovery was noted
after surgical treatment for acute ankle sprain compared
to non-operative treatment. However, the advantages of
this operative treatment should be balanced with the risk
of complications and the costs [6—8]. Functional treatment
after acute ankle sprain (with early proprioceptive rehabilitation) enables better results and faster recovery compared
to immobilization [9—12]. However, there are still controversies concerning the exact role of rehabilitation on the
prevention of ankle sprain recurrence [13].
Mechanical instability is due to the laxity caused by
ligaments tears. Functional instability is due to proprioceptive and muscular deficits after ankle sprain [14,15]. Both
mechanical and functional instabilities may be difficult to
assess or distinguish and they most often occur as a combination in the development of CAI.
The level of activity is a very important extrinsic factor
influencing the impact of CAI in the daily life. The assessment of activity level for each patient is useful not only to
differentiate patients at high or low risk of developing CAI
after an ankle sprain, but also to find the optimal treatment
and also allows comparison of functional results. Different
factors such as level of sport activities (professional, amateur competitive, leisure, sedentary), type of sport, work
and shoes must be assessed when questioning the patient.
It has recently been suggested that there may be a role for
those early operative repair of the ligaments in the acute
stage in elite athletes with a severe ankle sprain and significant ankle instability as this is known to reduce the risk
of CAI as the incidence of significant symptoms following
non-operative management is approximately 20% [16].
Lower limb varus mal-alignment has been described as an
important factor predisposing to ankle sprain and CAI [17].
Anatomical variations of the tibiotalar joint such as axis of
rotation, talar dome radius or retroposition of the lateral
malleolus can predispose to ankle sprain and CAI [17—20].
Pathological conditions of the tibiotalar joint such as
limitation of dorsiflexion (anterior impingement, short
gastrocnemius), chondral problems (ankle osteochondral
defects, loose bodies) or bimalleolar diastasis can provoke
or increase CAI [21].
Subtalar joint anatomical variations (axis of rotation,
hindfoot varus) or pathologies (talocalcaneal coalition,
subtalar joint laxity due to injuries of the cervical ligament, the talocalcaneal ligament or the interosseous
ligament) act as risk factors of CAI [22—27]. Anatomical and

S. Guillo et al.
histological variations of the collateral lateral ligament
(insertion zones, number of bands, collagen diseases) are
also important intrinsic risk factors for CAI [20,28—30]. Peroneal tendons pathologies can provoke or increase a CAI [31]
and pathologies with a proprioceptive deficit or imbalance in
neuromuscular control are a frequent cause of CAI [17,32].
Evidence from peer-reviewed literature suggests that the
characteristics of patients who develop chronic ankle instability are not homogeneous. The aetiological elements of
CAI are a continuum of pathologic conditions and anatomic
variability. A good knowledge of these characteristics will
improve the decisions for the treatment.
Not all aetiological aspects are yet defined and more
studies are needed. A well-known pathological condition is
the patient with persisting complaints of instability associated with pain, but without any objective characteristics.
This may be explained by formation of scar tissue and arthroscopic approach may be useful to assess the ankle joint in
these situations [33].

Clinical assessment of chronic ankle instability
History of an ankle sprain must precede the symptoms of
CAI. A lateral ankle sprain is defined as an episode of acute
inversion/supination injury of the ankle associated with
swelling, lateral ankle pain and difficulty weight-bearing.
Chronic ankle instability is defined as the perception by
the patient of an abnormal ankle with a combination of
symptoms including recurrent sprains, pain and swelling or
avoidance of activities.
The following standard questions should be asked of
patients with ankle instability:
• how long ago was the first acute event?
• what were the modalities of treatment?
• does the ankle continue to give way? (yes or no):
◦ if yes, with what frequency?
• is there an adaptation or avoidance to daily or sport activities? (yes or no);
• is there an ankle pain between new sprain events? (yes or
no):
◦ if yes, the location of the pain must be defined;
• does the ankle swell? (yes or no):
◦ if yes, the location of the swelling must be specified.
The purpose of these questions is to establish which of
the following five presentations is present all of which are
compatible with CAI:
•
•
•
•
•

recurrent acute ankle sprain;
giving way of the ankle without new sprain;
perception of an insecure/unstable ankle by the patient;
avoidance of/adaptation to daily or sporting activities;
perception of an abnormal ankle by the patient (pain,
swelling).

The physical examination must include comparative
assessment of both ankles. Lower leg and hindfoot alignment must be assessed whilst standing and gait should
be evaluated. Precise location of tenderness must be
identified. Active and passive ankle range of motion (ROM)

Chronic ankle instability: current-concepts
is measured with the knee extended and then on a sitting position with the legs down and the knees flexed to
90◦ in order to assess gastrocnemius tightness. Hindfoot
inversion/eversion is compared to the other side. In view
of the difficulty in making precise measurements of hindfoot mobility, grading as normal, abnormal (increased or
decreased) or no mobility is appropriate. An assessment
of generalised joint laxity is important (Beighton scale).
Strength and pain on resisted function of peroneal and
tibialis posterior tendons are specifically tested and neurovascular status of the lower legs is then assessed. Ankle
ligament testing is comparative and performed on a relaxed
patient in a sitting position with the knee flexed. It may be
difficult to describe the degree of ankle laxity of the anterior drawer test between examiners and therefore a simple
description of stable, unstable, unstable with sulcus sign
may be preferred. The presence of varus tilt is frequently
difficult to assess and laxity or absence of laxity compared
to the other side is likewise preferred [34,35]. Stability and
proprioceptive control of the ankle can be assessed by the
patient standing with a single leg stance (eyes open and
then eyes closed). This test may be helpful to differentiate
mechanical from functional instability [36,37].

Radiographic assessment
The standard plain radiographs include: standing anteroposterior, lateral and mortise views and a comparative
Saltzmann view (or Méary view), which is helpful to assess
hindfoot alignment. Comparative stress radiographic views
with anterior drawer test and varus tilt may be performed
although it should be recognised that these have a high rate
of false negative results [34,35].
Magnetic resonance imaging may be helpful in the presence of deep pain to assess for osteochondral lesions and
tendon injuries and it will also confirm the presence of
chronic ligamentous injury. Ultrasonography may be particularly helpful in the assessment of tendon pathology.
Computer tomography/MRI-arthrogram scanning is not routinely advised but may be helpful for accurate assessment
of chondral lesion.

Scoring systems for chronic ankle instability
Quantifying the severity of ankle instability is a difficult
problem. Many patients may not have any episodes of actual
giving way or falling, as they tend to avoid aggravating situations. Instead, the main complaint is often just a feeling of
vulnerability and this is hard to measure objectively. However, an attempt has to be made to gauge the severity of
the problem in order to facilitate decisions regarding indications for surgery, return to sport and of course assessing
the quality of the outcome of surgical intervention.
The history of outcome scoring for instability mirrors
the experience of orthopaedics as a whole, moving from
surgeon-designed and -administered scores to more objective patient-centred measures (Table 1). We are fortunate
that in this area we have some objective measures (Table 2)
that can be used to analyse the clinimetric properties of the
various outcome scores though they are not appropriate for
everyday clinical use.

S413
Table 1

Outcome scores.

Generic health scores

Disease specific scores

SF12 [38]
EuroQol -EQ5D [39]

Karlsson 1988 [44]
Kaikkonen 1994 [45]
Ankle joint functional
assessment tool (AJFAT) 1999
[46]
Functional Ankle Disability
Index (FADI)
Functional Ankle Disability
Sport (FADI-Sport) 1999 [47]
Sports ankle rating system
(SARS) 2003 [48]

Generic foot and ankle
scores

American orthopaedic
foot and ankle score
(AOFAS) [40]
Foot and ankle outcome
score (FAOS) 2001
[41]

Activity assessment
scales
Tegner 1985 [42]
Halasi 2004 [43]

Foot and ankle assessment
measure (FAAM) 2005 [49]
Ankle instability index (AII)
2006 [50]
Cumberland Ankle Instability
Tool (CAIT) 2006 [51]
Foot and ankle instability
questionnaire (FAIQ) 2007 [52]
Chronic ankle instability scale
(CAIS) 2008 [53]
Identification of foot and ankle
instability (IdFAI) 2011 [54]

To-date, there has been no consensus on the best score
to use. A variety of instruments have been advocated, many
of which are not validated or even appropriate for instability
(Table 3). A number of studies have analysed many of these
scores, though none have as yet proved to be clearly superior
[64—66]. The IdFAI score is the most recent and promising
score but it is yet to be used in any published studies [54].
The authors themselves feel that it is a starting point for
further development and refinement rather than a definitive
measure.
Consensus was reached that this area needed much more
work but that comparison of results required a standardised approach. The FAOS score was selected as this has
been validated for use in ankle ligament reconstruction, it
is patient-centred and easy to complete [41]. This should be

Table 2

Physical tests.

Non-instrumented

Instrumented

Single leg balance [36,37]

Force platforms- static
and dynamic testing [58]
Surface EMG- peroneal
reaction times [59]

Hopping tests
— on-the-spot, lateral,
figure-of-8 [55]
Y balance test and star
excursion balance test
[56]
Balance error scoring
system [57]

S414

S. Guillo et al.

Table 3 Review of instability literature from foot and ankle
instability 2012 to present.
Study

Outcome score
used

Tourné et al. 2012 [60]

Karlsson
Good Jones
Livingstone
Karlsson
FAAM
AOFAS

Youn et al. 2012 [61]
Miller et al. 2013 [62]
Vega et al. 2013 [63]

used in conjunction with the EQ5D, a 5-item generic health
measure that is similarly quick and easy to complete.
There is a wide variation in the type of patient from the
office worker to the ‘week-end warrior’ and the elite athlete. Therefore it is recommended that the Halasi activity
level score, a modernised version of the Tegner Score, is
used to define the patient population of individual series’ in
order to inform comparison of outcome in light of demand
and expectation [42,43].

Arthroscopic assessment in chronic ankle
instability
A review of the literature shows that 13 to 35% of patients
report symptoms such as pain and recurrent instability
after a successful ligament reconstruction [67—71]. Intraarticular pathology has been suggested as the cause for
these persistent symptoms, and although many authors have
reported arthroscopic findings in patients with chronic lateral ankle instability, there has been no attempt to correlate
the type and number of intra-articular lesions with the
patient outcome.
Previous studies stated that osteochondral lesions of the
talus, soft tissue impingement lesions, osseous loose bodies, peroneal tendon disorders and other associated injuries
could be sources of postoperative pain in chronic ankle
instability patients [20,71—75]. To date, there have been
few reports on surgical results with regard to intra-articular
lesions in patients with chronic lateral ankle instability. Choi
et al. have shown that 63 out of 65 cases of ankle instability
(96.9%) had intra-articular lesions, of which 53 cases (81.5%)
showed soft tissue impingement as the most common associated lesion [21]. Other associated intra-articular lesions
included ossicles at the lateral malleolus (38.5%), syndesmosis widening (29.2%), and osteochondral lesion of the talus
(23.1%). One of the notable features of this study is that they
have analyzed the clinical outcome relative to the presence
of intra-articular lesions and have shown that the strongest
risk indicators for patients’ dissatisfaction were syndesmosis widening, osteochondral lesions of the talus and ossicles.
The number and severity of lesions was greater in those with
chronic instability and this was also associated with a poor
clinical outcome following surgery.
The high rate of soft tissue impingement in chronic ankle
instability may be a response to a coexisting intra-articular
lesion or repetitive inversion stress to the ankle. The term
‘‘soft tissue impingement’’ included hypertrophic synovial

and fibrotic scar tissue obliterating the joint space that
corresponded to localized tenderness. Soft tissue impingement is known to be strongly associated with osteochondral
lesions due to the self-regeneration mechanism of synovial
osteoprogenitor cells that migrate to the lesion site. However, there is disagreement about whether this would affect
the clinical outcome [76—78]. Lee et al. described the diagnosis and arthroscopic treatment of soft tissue impingement
in 38 patients with chronic ankle pain after trauma [79].
Ossicles at the tip of the lateral malleolus are frequently
found in patients with chronic lateral ankle instability.
However, the relationship between the presence or the
size of an ossicle and the outcome of ligament reconstruction is poorly understood. Kim et al. reported that
ankles with large ossicles improved post-reconstruction with
regards to varus stability but not anteroposterior stability
[80]. When the ossicle is large, excision and the modified Broström technique may not be suitable to achieve
mechanical anteroposterior stability. Therefore, fusing the
ossicle to the fibular tip or using other methods of ligament
reconstruction may need to be considered in chronic ankle
instability with associated large ossicles (Fig. 1).
Syndesmosis widening has been recognized as one of
the causes of prolonged ankle pain. Injury to the syndesmotic ligaments occurs as a result of external rotation
forces, which often accompany inversion sprains. Syndesmotic instability was defined as the ability to displace
the fibula laterally more than 2 mm with the shoulder of
the probe while placed in the syndesmotic joint [81—84].
This criterion was based on the study by Close who reported
that the maximum widening of the intra-articular distal
tibiofibular syndesmosis was approximately 1.5 mm in a
normal ankle [85]. Teramoto and Taylor reported that a possible explanation for the increased incidence of recurrent
sprains in patients with syndesmosis widening is altered fibular mobility leading to altered ankle biomechanics [86,87].
Disrupted distal fibular migration and fibular axial motion
can alter normal ankle function. The resultant alteration
in ankle function may predispose the ankle to inversion
sprains. Therefore, after the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis is ruptured, healing is protracted, functional disability
is not uncommon and prognosis is guarded. Some controversy exists regarding the treatment method and the merits
of screw fixation [82,88,89]. Han et al. in accordance with
Ogilvie-Harris and Reed suggested that soft tissue hypertrophy and its subsequent impingement may be the cause
of pain and disability in chronic tibiofibular syndesmosis
injury [81,82]. They recommended arthroscopic marginal
resection alone if it has been determined that there is no
rupture of the medial deltoid ligament and, thus, no effect
on the contact surface and maximal pressure of the ankle
joint. Poor functional outcome from residual instability of
the distal tibiofibular joint may occur after lateral ligament
reconstruction and anatomical reconstruction of syndesmosis will be needed to restore syndesmosis stability.
Several studies have shown that chronic lateral ankle
instability is often associated with chondral lesions in the
ankle [73—75,90]. It is clear that high contact pressure and
shear stress adjacent to cartilage defects may interfere with
hyaline cartilage function in adjacent areas of normal cartilage [91,92]. Such a deleterious effect may explain the
worse clinical outcome with osteochondral lesions in spite

Chronic ankle instability: current-concepts

Figure 1

S415

Treatment algorithm of an ossicle of the lateral malleoli in patients with chronic ankle instability.

of a successful ligament reconstruction. Few investigators
have reported on the differences in the clinical outcomes of
arthroscopic treatment for osteochondral lesions performed
on lateral ligament reconstructed ankles versus arthroscopy
done in isolated osteochondral lesions in lateral ligamentintact ankles.
There have been no clear criteria to help surgeons
decide whether the ligament remnant will be sufficient
for Brostrom—type procedures. Judgment of this has historically been unscientific, merely relying on the surgeon’s
experience. Normal ligaments consist of 90% type 1 collagen, which is primarily responsible for the stiffness and
strength of the ligament [93—95]. Any decrease of type 1
collagen suggests the strength of the ligament is weaker
than the normal. Yasui and Takao compared the arthroscopic
and histological findings of the ATFL remnant, and clarified the degree of irregularity of ATFL fibre in arthroscopic
assessment. If the ATFL had a highly irregular appearance
in arthroscopic evaluation, histology showed that the ligament fibres consisted of scar tissue without type I collagen
[96]. There was good correlation between the arthroscopic
assessment of irregularity of the ATFL remnant and the histological appearance. They therefore recommended that
the surgical procedure should be selected according to the
arthroscopic assessment of the ATFL remnant (Fig. 2).

Therefore, a thorough arthroscopic assessment is indicated prior to lateral ligament reconstruction in addition
to clinical and radiological examination, unless a patient is
pain-free with negative radiological assessment. This assessment should include careful inspection for any soft tissue
impingement, syndesmosis widening, osteochondral lesions
as well as the appearance of the remnant of the ATFL in
order to determine the correct surgical strategy.

Surgical indications for chronic ankle
instability
Over the past 40 years, the orthopaedic community has
witnessed an evolution in knee and shoulder surgery for
unstable joints from non-anatomic reconstructions utilizing
open approaches toward anatomical reconstructive procedures performed either through smaller open incisions or
arthroscopically. The surgical treatment of chronic lateral
ankle instability is currently evolving in a similar manner.
Traditional open procedures to stabilize the ankle using tendon grafts placed non-anatomically can result in a stable
ankle. However, these procedures, such as the ChrismanSnook, Evans, and Watson-Jones, may over-constrain both
the ankle and subtalar joints resulting in limitation of
joint motion and long term development of degenerative
arthritis. Contemporary techniques emphasize anatomic
repair/reconstruction to restore stability while attempting
to minimize these complications.
For the purposes of this article, we define repair as the
primary or secondary suturing of the torn lateral ligaments.
A reconstruction refers to the replacement of the chronically deficient lateral ligaments with local tissues or with
autograft or allograft tissue.

Local ligament soft tissue repair techniques

Figure 2 Selection of the surgical procedure according to
arthroscopic evaluation of the remnant of the anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL).

The classic Broström procedure is a true repair of the lateral
ligaments including the ATFL and the CFL. However, it is
rarely performed as a stand-alone procedure. Since it is usually augmented with a transfer of the extensor retinaculum

S416
either as a proximal advancement (Gould procedure) or as
a pedicle flap of retinaculum, we classify this procedure as
a repair/augmentation. There is question as to whether the
extensor retinaculum truly provides mechanical ankle and
subtalar stability through its attachment to the calcaneus
or if it simply provides for an enhanced proprioceptive
environment. No matter the method of effectiveness,
the retinacular augmentation is regarded as a critical
element of this procedure’s success. The procedure may be
performed the traditional manner with drill holes or bone
anchors with attached nonabsorbable suture may be utilized. It is the consensus of the ankle instability group that
this procedure is the appropriate first-line consideration for
patients with chronic lateral ankle ligament laxity requiring
surgical treatment.

Ligament reconstruction using tendon graft or
transfer
Anatomic reconstruction with tendon graft or transfer
Traditionally these types of procedures have been reserved
for patients who have failed a prior Broström-Gould repair.
However, patients who may stress their ankle to a greater
degree than normal, including those with high body mass
index, heavy labor occupation or sports requirements, or
patients with congenital ligament laxity may benefit from
performing ligament reconstruction as the primary procedure. Although isometry of the lateral ankle ligaments has
not been proven, placement of the tendon grafts at the
ligaments’ anatomical origin and insertion should be performed. The goal is to achieve good ankle stability without
overconstraining the ankle or subtalar joints. Non-anatomic
positioning of the graft may alter the biomechanics of the
joints resulting in joint loading alterations which may lead
to joint degeneration over time.
These procedures have in common the routing of the
transferred tendon graft in such a way as to replicate the
anatomic positions of the ATFL and CFL origin and insertion sites. They vary in the means by which they attain that
positioning, including the number and angle of tunnels in
the fibula and the fixation techniques selected in each bone
tunnel location. There are many different ways the ligament graft can be secured in the bone including anchors,
bone tunnels with interference screws, and endobutton
type devices. The selected fixation device should be secure
enough to maintain appropriate tension on the reconstruction intra-operatively as well as support healing and
potentially allow for early joint motion. The surgeon may
elect to use hamstring autograft or allograft depending on
patient requirements and the resources and training available to the surgeon.
Non-anatomical reconstruction with tendon transfer or
graft
Non-anatomic reconstructions of the lateral ankle ligaments
have a long track record in the orthopaedic literature where
they have been shown historically to work well to establish
a stable hindfoot for functional activities. Similar to the
non-anatomical instability procedures performed in the
knee and shoulder, the long-term results in the ankle reveal
an increased incidence of degenerative changes in the

S. Guillo et al.
hindfoot. Several of these procedures utilize a segment or
the entire peroneal tendon as either a graft or transfer. The
peroneal tendons are important dynamic stabilizers of the
hindfoot and harvesting these tendons for grafts or transfers may result in long-term weakness and loss of dynamic
stabilization of the ankle and subtalar joints. Our consensus
is that with modern fixation techniques and the known longterm degenerative sequelae associated with non-anatomical
reconstruction, these procedures should be avoided.

Arthroscopic lateral ligament procedures
Numerous articles describe a high incidence of intraarticular pathology when ankle arthroscopy is performed at
the time of ligament reconstruction [21,72—74,82—84]. This
finding has prompted many surgeons to recommend performing arthroscopy in association with a lateral ligament
reconstruction [33,83].
In the last five years there have been several arthroscopically assisted techniques to perform lateral ankle
ligament reconstruction described in the orthopaedic literature [63,97—104]. These techniques show early promising
results in level IV studies with short-term follow-up. These
procedures have in common the use of arthroscopic techniques to thoroughly clean out the lateral gutter to expose
the anatomic origin of the lateral ligaments on the distal
fibula followed by placement of one or more suture anchors
into the fibula. There are various approaches to passing the
sutures through the ATFL, CFL, and retinaculum to affect
a repair/augmentation procedure, which effectively replicates the Broström-Gould procedure. The procedure may
be further refined as specific instrumentation is devised to
facilitate the repair/augmentation.
Techniques are also being developed to perform anatomic
reconstructions using tendon graft using an all arthroscopic
approach. These procedures are very technically demanding
and they are early in their development. We believe that
further investigation and reporting of results are required
before these techniques can be adopted as routine. We
recommend that before performing arthroscopic repair or
reconstruction in the ankle, the surgeon should be highly
skilled in arthroscopy of the ankle and should have gained
experience on the procedures in cadaver workshops or with
an experienced mentor.
The presence of a fibular ossicle can complicate performance of a lateral ligament reconstruction [21]. Recent
studies indicate that an ossicle of less than 1 cm in greatest dimension can be safely excised and a local soft tissue
reconstruction be performed. However, if the ossicle is more
than 1 cm in any dimension, it is recommended that the surgeon either fuse the ossicle and proceed with a local soft
tissue procedure; or excise the ossicle and proceed with an
anatomic tendon graft/transfer type procedure.

Conclusion
Standardised assessment of the ankle pre-operatively and
at follow-up is imperative in order to allow comparison of outcome from treatment with various techniques.
The recording of clinical information along with standardised radiological evaluation as has been described above

Chronic ankle instability: current-concepts
following this consensus group meeting will help and the
recommendations made here have been evaluated and are
evidence-based. There is a move towards patient-orientated
outcome scores which is why the ankle-specific validated
systems have been advocated as they are relatively simple
to use with less chance of information loss and increased
chance patient compliance. The anatomical repairs are still
the best methods of treatment in symptomatic chronic instability and with the high incidence of intra-articular pathology it is recommended that an arthroscopy is performed
at the time of surgery unless intra-articular pathology has
been excluded by MRI scan and there is no history of pain.
There is a move towards the development of arthroscopic
anatomical lateral ligament repair which may well take over
from the open approaches that are currently performed in
a similar way to how knee and shoulder ligament surgery
has developed over the past 10—15 years. Anatomical reconstruction with tendon grafts/augmentation is preferable
in the revision cases or those with gross laxity or insufficient innate tissue. Non-anatomical procedures should be
avoided in these situations. Early reconstruction of acute
ligament injuries may also be considered in the athlete as
this improves stability, reducing the incidence subsequent
complications from recurrent sprains without compromising
or delaying return to sports.

Disclosure of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest
concerning this article.

References
[1] Garrick JG. The frequency of injury, mechanism of injury
and epidemiology of ankle sprains. Am J Sports Med
1977;5:241—2.
[2] Konradsen L, Bech L, Ehrenbjerg M, Nickelsen T. Seven years
follow-up after ankle inversion trauma. Scand J Med Sci Sports
2002;12:129—35.
[3] Hertel J. Functional anatomy, pathomechanics, and pathophysiology of lateral instability. J Athl Train 2002;37:364—75.
[4] McKay GD, Goldie PA, Payne WR, Oakes BW. Ankle injuries
in basketball: injury rate and risk factors. Br J Sports Med
2001;35:103—8.
[5] Pijnenburg ACM, can Dijk CN, Bossuyt PMM, Marti RK.
Treatment of ruptures of the lateral ankle ligaments: a metaanalysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000;82A:761—8.
[6] Kannus P, Renstrom P. Current concepts review: treatment for
acute tears of the lateral ligaments of the ankle-operation,
cast, or controlled mobilization. J Bone Joint surg Am
1991;73:305—12.
[7] Pijnenburg ACM, Boogaard K, Krips R, Marti RK, Bossuyt PMM,
van Dijk CN. Operative and functional treatment of rupture
of the lateral ligament of the ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Br
2003;85B:525—30.
[8] Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Handoll HH, de Bie R, Rowe BH, Struijs PAA.
Surgical versus conservative treatment for acute injuries of
the lateral ligament complex of the ankle in adults. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev 2007;18(2):CD000380 [Cochrane Review].
[9] Karlsson J, Sancone M. Management of acute ligament injuries
of the ankle. Foot Ankle Clin N Am 2006;11:521—30.

S417
[10] Karlsson J, Eriksson BI, Swärd L. Early functional treatment
for acute ligament injuries of the ankle joint. Scand J Med Sci
Sports 1996;6:341—5.
[11] Ardevol J, Bolibar I, Belda V, Argilaga S. Treatment of
complete rupture of the lateral ligaments of the ankle: a
randomized clinical trial comparing cast immobilization with
functional treatment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
2002;10(6):371—7.
[12] Kerkhoffs GMMJ, Struijs PAA, Marti RK, Blankevoort L,
Assendelft WJJ, van Dijk CN. Functional treatments for acute
rupture of the lateral ankle ligament. Acta Orthop Scand
2003;74:69—77.
[13] Guillodo Y, Simon T, Le Goff A, Sarau A. Interest of rehabilitation in healing and preventing recurrence of ankle sprains.
Ann Phys Rehabil Med 2013;56(7-8):503—14.
[14] Bosien WR, Staples OS, Russel SW. Residual disability following
acute ankle sprains. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1955;37:1237—43.
[15] Hiller CE, Kilbreath SL, Refshauge KM. Chronic ankle instability: evolution of the model. J Athl Train 2011;46:133—41.
[16] van den Bekerom MP, Kerkhoffs GM, McCollum GA, Calder JD,
van Dijk CN. Management of acute lateral ankle ligament
injury in the athlete. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
2013;21(6):1390—5.
[17] Bonnel F, Toullec E, Mabit C, Tourné Y. Chronic ankle
instability: biomechanics and pathomechanics of ligaments
injury and associated lesions. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res
2010;96:424—32.
[18] Coughlin MJ, Mann RA, Saltzman CL. Surgery of the foot and
ankle. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby Elsevier; 2007. p. 1467—8.
[19] Sammarco GJ, Burstein AH, Frankel VH. Biomechanics of the
ankle: a kinematic study. Orthop Clin North Am 1973;4:75—96.
[20] Scranton PE, McDermott JE, Rogers JV. The relationship between chronic ankle instability and variations in
mortise anatomy and impingement spurs. Foot Ankle Int
2000;21:657—64.
[21] Choi WJ, Lee JW, Han SH, Kim BS, Lee SK. Chronic lateral ankle instability. The effect of intra-articular lesions
on clinical outcome. Am J Sports Med 2008;36:2167—72,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363546508319050.
[22] Inman VT. The joints of the ankle. Baltimore, MD: Williams &
Wilkins; 1976.
[23] Van Bergeyk AB, et al. CT analysis of hindfoot alignment in chronic lateral ankle instability. Foot Ankle Int
2002;23:37—42.
[24] Brennan SA, Kiernan C, Maleki F, Bergin D, Kearns SR. Talonavicular synostosis with lateral ankle instability — a case report
and review of the literature. Foot Ankle Surg 2012;18:e34—6.
[25] Kjaersgaard-Andersen P, Wethelund J, Helmig P, et al. The stabilizing effect of the ligamentous structures in the sinus and
canalis tarsi on movements in the hindfoot: an experimental
study. Am J Sports Med 1988;16:512—6.
[26] Seebauer CJ, Bail HJ, Rump JC, Hamm B, Walter T, Teichgräber UK. Ankle laxity: stress investigation under MRI
control. AJR 2013;201:496—504.
[27] Tochigi Y, Amendola A, Rudert MJ, et al. The role of the
interosseous talocalcaneal ligament in subtalar joint stability.
Foot Ankle Int 2004;25:588—96.
[28] Golano P, Vega J, de Leeuw PAJ, Malagelada F, Manzanares MC,
Götzens V, et al. Anatomy of the ankle ligaments: a pictorial
essay. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010;18:557—69.
[29] Wiersma PH, Griffioen FMM. Variations of three lateral ligaments of the ankle. A descriptive anatomical study. The Foot
1992;2:218—24.
[30] Hubbard-Turner. Relationship between mechanical ankle joint
laxity and subjective function. Foot Ankle Int 2012;33:852—6.
[31] Hatch GF, Labib SA, Hutton W. Role of the peroneal tendons
and superior peroneal retinaculum as static stabilizers of the
ankle. J Surg Orthop Adv 2007;16:187—91.

S418
[32] Hiller CE, Nightingale EJ, Lin CW, Coughlan GF, Caulfield B,
Delahunt E. Characteristics of people with recurrent ankle
sprains: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports
Med 2011;45:660—72.
[33] Kerr H-L, Bayley E, Jackson R, Kothari P. The role
of arthroscopy in the treatment of functional instability of the ankle Foot Ankle Surg 2013; 2013,
http:/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2013.06.008.
[34] Bauer T, Hardy P. Entorse de la cheville. EMC (Elsevier Masson
SAS, Paris), Appareil locomoteur, 14-089-A-10, 2011.
[35] Tourné Y, Besse JL, Mabit C, Sofcot. Chronic ankle instability. Which tests to assess the lesions? Which therapeutic
options? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2010;96(4):433—46,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2010.04.005.
[36] Friden TZR, Lindstrand A, et al. A stabilometric technique
for evaluation of lower limb instabilities. Am J Sports Med
1989;17:118—22.
[37] Lentell GKL, Walters MR. The relationship between muscle
function and ankle instability. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
1990;11:605—11.
[38] Patel AADD, Albert T. The 36-item short form. J Am Acad
Orthop Surg 2007;15:126—34.
[39] Group E. EuroQol- a new facility for the measurement of
heath-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy 1990;16(3):199—208.
[40] SooHoo NFSM, Fleming LL. Evaluation of the AOFAS clinical
rating system. Foot Ankle Int 2003;24:50—5.
[41] Roos EBS, Karlsson. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int
2001;22(10):788—94.
[42] Tegner YLJ. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament
injuries. Clin Orth Rel Res 1985;196:43—9.
[43] Halasi TKA, Tallay A, Berkes I. Development of a new activity
score for the evaluation of ankle instability. Am J Sports Med
2004;32(4):899—908.
[44] Karlsson JPL. Evaluation of ankle joint function: the use of a
scoring scale. The Foot 1991;1:15—9.
[45] Kaikkonen ALH, Kannus P, Jarvinen M. Long-term functional
outcome after surgery of chronic ankle instability: a 5 year
follow-up of the modified Evans procedure. Scand J Med Sci
Sports 1999;9:239—44.
[46] Rozzi SLLS, Sterner R, Kuligowski L. Balance training for persons with functionally unstable ankles. J Orthop Sports Phys
Ther 1999;29:478—86.
[47] Hale SAHJ. Reliability and sensitivity of the foot and ankle
disability index in subjects with chronic ankle instability. J
Ath Train 2005;40(1):35—40.
[48] Williams GMJ, DeBerardino T, Arciero R, Taylor D. Evaluation of the sports ankle rating system in young athletic
indivduals with acute lateral ankle sprains. Foot Ankle Int
2003;24(3):274—82.
[49] Martin RLIJ, Burdett RG, Conti SF, Van Swearingen JM. Evidence of validity for the foot and ankle ability measure. Foot
Ankle Int 2005;26:968—83.
[50] Docherty CAB, Hurwitz S. Development and reliability of the
ankle instability index. J Ath Train 2006;41:154—8.
[51] Hiller CERK, Bundy AC, Herbert RD, Kilbreath SL. The Cumberland ankle instability tool: a report of validity and reliability
testing. Arch Phys Med Rehab 2006;87:1235—41.
[52] Hubbard TKL, Denegar C, Hertel J. Correlations among multip
measures of functional and mechanical instability in subjects
with chronic ankle instability. J Ath Train 2007;42(3):361—6.
[53] Eechaute CVP, Duquet W. The chronic ankle instability
scale: clinimetric properties of a mulit-dimensional, patientassessed instrument. Phys Ther Sport 2008;9:57—66.
[54] Simon JDM, Docherty C. Development of the identification of functional ankle instability. Foot Ankle Int
2012;33(9):755—63.

S. Guillo et al.
[55] Buchanan ASDC, Schrader J. Functional performance testing in participants with functional ankle instability and in a
healthy control group. J Ath Train 2008;43:342—6.
[56] Gribble PAHJ, Plisky P. Using the star excursion balance test
to assess dynamic postural-control deficits and outcomes in
lower extremity injury: a literature and systematic review. J
Ath Train 2012;24(3):339—57.
[57] Docherty CLVMT, Shultz S. Postural control deficits in participants with functional ankle instability as measured
by the balance error scoring system. Clin J Sports Med
2006;16:203—8.
[58] Isakov EMJ. Is balance impaired by recurrent sprained ankle?
Br J Sports Med 1997;31:65—7.
[59] Hoch MCMP. Peroneal reaction time following ankle sprain:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Sci Sport Exerc
2013 [epub ahead of print].
[60] Tourné YMC, Moroney P, Chaussard C, Saragaglia D. Long-term
follow-up of lateral reconstruction and extensor retinaculum flap for chronic ankle instability. Foot Ankle Int
2012;33(12):1079—86.
[61] Youn HKY, Lee J, Choi WJ, Lee JW. Percutaneous lateral ligament reconstruction with allograft for chronic lateral ankle
instability. Foot Ankle Int 2012;33(2):99—104.
[62] Miller ARS, Ahmad J. Near-anatomic allograft tenodesis of chronic lateral ankle instability. Foot Ankle Int
2013;34(11):1501—7.
[63] Vega J, Golano P, Pellegrino A, Rabat E, Pena F. All insaide
arthroscopic lateral collateral ligament repair for ankle instability with a knotless suture anchor technique. Foot Ankle Int
2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1071100713502322.
[64] Donahue MSJ, Docherty C. Critical review of selfreported functional ankle instability. Foot Ankle Int
2011;32(12):1140—6.
[65] Eechaute CVP, Van Aerschott L, Asman S, Duquet W. The
clinimetric properties of patient-assessed instruments for
measuring chronic ankle instability: a systematic review. BMC
Musculoskeletal Disorders 2007;8(6):1—11.
[66] Burn ABY, Chopra S, Winkler M, Crevoisier X. Critical evaluation of outcome scales assessment of lateral ankle ligament
reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int 2013;34(7):995—1005.
[67] Eyring EJ, Guthrie WD. A surgical approach to the problem of
severe lateral instability at the ankle. Clin Orthop Relat Res
1986;206:185—91.
[68] Karlsson J, Bergsten T, Lansinger O, Peterson L. Reconstruction of the lateral ligaments of the ankle for chronic lateral
instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1988;70:581—7.
[69] Rechtine GR, McCarroll JR, Webster DA. Reconstruction for
chronic lateral instability of the ankle: a review of twentyeight surgical patients. Orthopedics 1982;5:44—50.
[70] Sammarco GJ, DiRaimondo CV. Surgical treatment of lateral
ankle instability syndrome. Am J Sports Med 1988;16:501—11.
[71] Taga I, Shino K, Inoue M. Articular cartilage lesions in ankles
with lateral ligament injury: an arthroscopic study. Am J
Sports Med 1993;21:120—7.
[72] DiGiovanni BF, Fraga CJ, Cohen BE. Associated injuries
found in chronic lateral ankle instability. Foot Ankle Int
2000;21:809—15.
[73] Hintermann B, Boss A, Schafer D. Arthroscopic findings in
patients with chronic ankle instability. Am J Sports Med
2002;30:402—29.
[74] Komenda AG, Ferkel RD. Arthroscopic findings associated with
the unstable ankle. Foot Ankle Int 1999;20:708—13.
[75] Okuda R, Kinoshita M, Morikawa J, Yasuda T, Abe M. Arthroscopic findings in chronic lateral ankle instability: do focal
chondral lesions influence the results of ligament reconstruction? Am J Sports Med 2005;33:35—42.
[76] Urguden M, Soyuncu Y, Ozdemir H, et al. Arthroscopic
treatment of anterolateral soft tissue impingement of the

Chronic ankle instability: current-concepts

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]
[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]
[90]

ankle: evaluation of factors affecting outcome. Arthroscopy
2005;21:317—22.
Deberardino TM, Arciero RA, Taylor DC. Arthroscopic treatment of soft tissue impingement of the ankle in athletes.
Arthroscopy 1997;13:492—8.
Ferkel RD, Karzel, Del Pizzo W. Arthroscopic treatment of
anterolateral impingement of the ankle. Am J Sports Med
1991;19:440—6.
Lee JW, Suh JS, Huh YM, Moon ES, Kim SJ. Soft tissue impingement syndrome of the ankle: diagnostic efficacy of MRI and
clinical results after arthroscopic treatment. Foot Ankle Int
2004;25:896—902.
Kim BS, Choi WJ, Kim YS, Lee JW. The effect of an ossicle of
the lateral malleolus on ligament reconstruction of chronic
lateral ankle instability. Foot Ankle Int 2010;31:191—6.
Han SH, Lee JW, Kim SJ, Suh JS, Choi YR. Chronic tibiofibular syndesmosis injury: the diagnostic efficiency of magnetic
resonance imaging and comparative analysis of operative
treatment. Foot Ankle Int 2007;28:336—42.
Ogilvie-Harris D, Reed S. Disruption of the ankle syndesmosis:
diagnosis and treatment by arthroscopic surgery. Arthroscopy
1994;10:561—8.
Takao M, Ochi M, Oae K, Naito K, Uchio Y. Diagnosis of a tear
of the tibiofibular syndesmosis. The role of arthroscopy of the
ankle. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85(3):324—9.
Van den Bekerom MP, Haverkamp D, Kerkhoffs GM, van Dijk
CN. Syndesmotic stabilization in pronation external rotation
ankle fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468(4):991—5.
Close JR. Some applications of the functional anatomy of the
ankle joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1956;38:761—81.
Teramoto A, Kura H, Uchiyama E, Suzuki D, Yamashita T.
Three-dimensional analysis of ankle instability after tibiofibular syndesmosis injuries. Am J Sports Med 2008;36:348—52.
Taylor DC, Englehardt DL, Bassett FH. III. Syndesmosis sprains
of the ankle: the influence of heterotopic ossification. Am J
Sports Med 1992;20:146—50.
Burn W, Prakash K, Adeaar R. Tibiotalar joint dynamics: indications for the syndesmotic screw — a cadaver study. Foot
Ankle 1993;14:153—8.
Clanton TO, Paul P. Syndesmosis injuries in athletes. Foot
Ankle Clin 2002;7:529—49.
Van Dijk CN, Bossuyt PMM, Marti RK. Medial ankle pain after
lateral ligament rupture. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996;78:562—7.

S419
[91] Smith RL, Trindade MCD, Ikenoue T, et al. Effects of shear
stress on articular chondrocyte metabolism. Biorheology
2000;37:95—107.
[92] Wilson W, van Rietbergen B, van Donkelaar CC, Huiskes R.
Pathways of load-induced cartilage damage causing cartilage degeneration in the knee after meniscectomy. J Biomech
2003;36:845—51.
[93] Frank C, Shrive N, Hiraoka H, et al. Optimisation of the biology
of soft tissue repair. J Sci Med Sport 1999;2:190—210.
[94] Frank C, Amiel D, Woo SL, Akeson W. Normal ligament
properties and ligament healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res
1985;196:15—25.
[95] Girard P, Anderson RB, Davis WH, Isear JA, Kiebzak GM. Clinical evaluation of the modified Brostrom-Evans procedure to
restore ankle stability. Foot Ankle Int 1999;20:246—52.
[96] Yasui Y, Takao M. Comparison of Arthroscopic and Histological Evaluation on the Injured Anterior Talofibular Ligament.
Chicago, USA: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) 2013 annual meeting; 2013.
[97] Maiotti M, Massoni C, Tarantino U. The use of arthroscopic
thermal shrinkage to treat chronic lateral ankle instability in
young athletes. Arthroscopy 2005;21(6):751—7.
[98] Lui TH. Arthroscopic-assisted lateral ligamentous reconstruction in combined ankle and subtalar instability. Arthroscopy
2007;23(5):554e1—5.
[99] Corte-Real NM, Moreira RM. Arthroscopic repair of lateral
ankle instability. Foot Ankle Int 2009;30:213—7.
[100] Kim ES, Lee KT, Park JS, et al. Arthroscopic anterior talofibular ligament repair for chronic ankle instability with a suture
anchor technique. Orthopedics 2011;34(4):1—5.
[101] Nery C, Raduan F, Del Buono A, et al. Arthroscopic-assisted
Broström-Gould for chronic ankle instability: a long-term
follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2011;39(11):2381—8.
[102] Acevedo JI, Mangone PG. Arthroscopic lateral ankle ligament
reconstruction. Tech Foot&Ankle 2011;10:111—6.
[103] Giza E, Shin EC, Wong SE, Acevedo JI, Mangone PG, Olson K,
Anderson MJ. Arthroscopic suture anchor repair of the lateral
ligament ankle complex: a cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med
2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363546513500639.
[104] Cottom JM, Rigby RB. The ‘‘all-inside’’ arthroscopic
Broström procedure: a prospective study of 40 consecutive
J
Foot
Ankle
Surg
2013;52(5):568—74,
patients.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2013.02.022.



---

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.7
Linearized                      : Yes
Author                          : S. Guillo
Create Date                     : 2013:11:24 15:58:23Z
Cross Mark Domains 1            : sciencedirect.com
Cross Mark Domains 2            : elsevier.com
Crossmark Domain Exclusive      : true
Crossmark Major Version Date    : 2010-04-23
Elsevier Web PDF Specifications : 6.4
Modify Date                     : 2013:12:08 19:54:46+01:00
Doi                             : 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.10.009
Robots                          : noindex
Language                        : EN
Tagged PDF                      : Yes
XMP Toolkit                     : Adobe XMP Core 5.2-c001 63.139439, 2010/09/27-13:37:26
Format                          : application/pdf
Identifier                      : 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.10.009
Title                           : Consensus in chronic ankle instability: Aetiology, assessment, surgical indications and place for arthroscopy
Creator                         : S. Guillo, T. Bauer, J.W. Lee, M. Takao, S.W. Kong, J.W. Stone, P.G. Mangone, A. Molloy, A. Perera, C.J. Pearce, F. Michels, Y. Tourné, A. Ghorbani, J. Calder
Subject                         : Ankle sprain, Ankle instability, Lateral ligament injury, Anterior talo-fibula ligament, Ankle arthroscopy
Description                     : Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 99 (2013) S411-S419. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2013.10.009
Publisher                       : Elsevier Masson SAS
Aggregation Type                : journal
Publication Name                : Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research
Copyright                       : © 2013 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.
ISSN                            : 1877-0568
Volume                          : 99
Number                          : 8
Cover Display Date              : December 2013
Cover Date                      : 2013:12
Page Range                      : S411-S419
Starting Page                   : S411
Ending Page                     : S419
Digital Object Identifier       : 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.10.009
URL                             : http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2013.10.009
Major Version Date              : 2010-04-23
Cross Mark Domains              : elsevier.com, sciencedirect.com
Cross Mark Domains 005 B1005D   : sciencedirect.com
Cross Mark Domains 005 B2005D   : elsevier.com
Creator Tool                    : Elsevier
Metadata Date                   : 2013:12:08 19:54:46+01:00
Marked                          : True
Trapped                         : True
Producer                        : Acrobat Distiller 9.0.0 (Windows)
Keywords                        : 
Document ID                     : uuid:28eea2c8-4af7-46e4-9dfa-f34a193bfc3e
Instance ID                     : uuid:2281c4b2-5be8-4253-8c42-312e5b6cf91a
Page Layout                     : SinglePage
Page Mode                       : UseOutlines
Page Count                      : 9

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools