ArticleInternational orthopaedics2021
Charcot Arthropathy of Foot and Ankle: Radiographic and Clinical Patterns with Related Outcomes.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of a new prognostic classification for foot and ankle charcot arthropathy.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Locally obtained autologous bone grafts are effective for achieving arthrodesis while managing foot and ankle charcot's neuroarthropathy: short to mid-term results from a specialized north African foot and ankle surgery unit.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Ankle and foot surgery: from arthrodesis to arthroplasty, three dimensional printing, sensors, artificial intelligence, machine learning technology, digital twins, and cell therapy.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur aim is to retrospectively review and evaluate the patterns of affection of Charcot arthropathy of foot and ankle.
methodsTwo hundred twenty-eight patients (235 feet) with post-acute Charcot were reviewed and classified anatomically through plain radiographs into type I and type II based on single or multiple regions affected, respectively. Type I included ankle, Lisfranc (tarsometatarsal), naviculocuneiform, forefoot, and hindfoot which includes one of the following: talonavicular joint, calcaneocuboid joint, or calcaneus. Type II included peritalar, perinavicular, mid-tarsal Charcot, or any other combination. Both types were further classified into four stages (A, stable with no deformity; B, stable with deformity; C, unstable; and D, deformity/instability with associated mechanical ulcers).
resultsThe most common type was type IIC (27.2%) followed by type IID (18.3%), while types IA and IIA represented the least common types (3.4% and 3.8%, respectively). Types IA and IIA were managed conservatively. All patients in types IC, ID, IIB, IIC, and IID and the majority of type IB received fusion surgery to achieve stability and correction of deformity. Type II D had the highest complication rate (30%). Five patients ended up with amputation, and all were stage IID.
conclusionAffection of single region has better prognosis than affection of two or more regions. Stage A has the best prognosis and can be managed conservatively provided good diabetes control. Surgery is indicated in all cases of types IC, ID, IIB, IIC, and IID to achieve stability and correction of deformity and prevent complications. Mechanical ulcer (stage D) carries the worst prognosis and highest complication rate.
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.