Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35066594›Full record

ReviewDer Unfallchirurg2022

[Open or arthroscopic arthrodesis of the ankle joint : Which is better?]

Tomas Buchhorn, Hans Polzer, Dominik Szymski

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Unfallchirurg, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tomas Buchhornsporthopaedicum Regensburg-Straubing, Bahnhofsplatz 27, 94315, Straubing, Deutschland. tom@buchhorn.biz.
Hans PolzerMuskuloskelettales Universitätszentrum München (MUM), Klinikum der Universität München, LMU, München, Deutschland.
Dominik Szymskisporthopaedicum Regensburg-Straubing, Bahnhofsplatz 27, 94315, Straubing, Deutschland.
LMU Klinikum · DEUniversity Hospital Regensburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the change in the age structure in Germany and the steadily increasing number of fractures, arthrosis of the upper ankle joint, mainly caused by posttraumatic conditions, is becoming more and more relevant in routine trauma surgery and orthopedics. Patients suffer from reduced functionality and quality of life as well as immobilizing pain. In addition to an ankle joint prosthesis arthrodesis of the upper ankle joint offers an alternative for the treatment of advanced arthrosis. When performing an arthrodesis there is basically the option of both open and arthroscopic procedures to prepare the joint and remove the cartilage. In both procedures the upper ankle joint is usually fixed with 2-3 cannulated compression screws. Comparative studies to date have shown an advantage of the arthroscopic technique in terms of complication rate, length of hospitalization, proportion of ossification and functional outcome. The indications for arthroscopic fusion should be strictly considered, especially in the case of malalignment, as major axis corrections are difficult to perform. In such cases, open fusion of the upper ankle joint still seems superior to the arthroscopic method.

Indexed as

Ankle JointOsteoarthritisArthrodesisArthroscopyHumansQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeArthrosisHospital stayOssificationQuality of lifeTreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID35066594
OpenAlexW4206906964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.