ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2024
Use of Bio-integrative Screws for Fixation of Lisfranc Instability; Pros and Cons from Surgeons' Point of View in a Cadaver Study.
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Majority of Lisfranc fracture-dislocations require anatomic reduction and rigid internal fixation to prevent debilitating sequelae. Current methods include solid screws and flexible fixations which have been in use for many years. Biointegrative screw is a newer option that has not yet been thoroughly investigated for its effectiveness for Lisfranc injuries. Methods: The ligaments of the Lisfranc complex were resected in eight lower-leg cadaveric specimens. This was done by eight foot and ankle surgeons individually. Distraction forces were applied from opposite sides at the joint to replicate weight bearing conditions. Three methods of fixation - flexible fixation, metal, and biointegrative screws- were evaluated. The diastasis and area at the level of the ligament were measured at four conditions (replicated injury and each type of fixation) in neutral and distraction conditions using fluoroscopy images. The Wilcoxon test and Kruskal Wallis test were used for comparison. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The diastasis value for the transected ligament scenario (2.47 ± 0.51 mm) was greater than those after all three fixation methods without distraction (2.02 ± 0.5 for flexible fixation, 1.72 ± 0.63 mm for metal screw fixation and 1.67 ± 0.77 mm for biointegrative screw fixation). The transected ligament diastasis was also greater than that for metal screw (1.61 ± 1.31mm) and biointegrative screws (1.69 ± 0.64 mm) with distraction (p<0.001). The area at the level of the ligament showed higher values for transected ligament (32.7 ± 13.08 mm2) than the three fixatives (30.75 ± 7.42 mm2 for flexible fixation, 30.75 ± 17.13 mm2 for metal screw fixation and 29.53 ± 9.15 mm2 for biointegrative screw fixation; p<0.05). Conclusion: Metal screws, flexible fixation and biointegrative screws showed comparable effectiveness intra-op, in the correction of diastasis created as a consequence of Lisfranc injury.
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.