ReviewJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2021
Intramedullary fixation of fibula fractures: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rate of fibular non-union in patients with tibial shaft fractures: a retrospective cohort study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- Percutaneous Treatment of Geriatric Distal Tibia and Fibula Fractures With a Poor Soft Tissue Envelope - A Case Series.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Article
- Biomechanical comparison of plate, intramedullary screw, and headless compression screw fixation in Danis-Weber type B lateral malleolar fractures.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Cost analysis and clinical outcomes of anatomic pre-contoured locking versus conventional plates for distal fibula ankle fractures.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDistal fibula fractures are common injuries that often require open reduction internal fixation. Intramedullary fixation of the fibula has been used historically, and interest has been renewed somewhat recently, although there is limited data assessing outcomes after intramedullary fibular fixation. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the literature as it relates to the clinical and functional outcome after fibular fracture fixation using an intramedullary device.
methodsA literature review on Medline/Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane and Google was performed. In total, 1994 abstracts were reviewed of which 30 articles in English, German and French were included, all of which evaluated the clinical and functional outcome after fibular nail osteosynthesis.
resultsWithin the 30 studies, a total of 1116/1380 patients were treated with a fibular nail between 1986 and 2018. In total 11 different devices were investigated. Six articles compared fibular nail versus plate osteosynthesis and in five cases a prospective study was performed. The complication rate varied somewhat widely based on the implants used. The mean union rate was 99.1% with a mean follow-up of 19.0 months. In comparison to plate fixation the nail was superior in terms of complication rate in most studies. No unified assessment of functional outcome was used, and so comparison between studies was difficult. However, good and excellent results were obtained in 73%-100% of patients.
conclusionCurrent data on intramedullary fixation of the fibula is limited and suffers significantly from inconsistency in outcome reporting. It remains to be seen whether the potential advantages of intramedullary implants can both maintain the good results of other implants and improve on some aspects of more commonly used implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, systematic review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.