ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2024
Retrospective Review of Complications and Revision Rates Between Isolated Talonavicular vs Talonavicular and Subtalar (Double) Arthrodesis vs Triple Arthrodesis.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy of double and triple arthrodesis in adult-acquired flatfoot deformity: a retrospective analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical, radiological outcomes, and plantar pressure distribution following isolated talonavicular arthrodesis: a retrospective analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hindfoot fusion procedures are common for the treatment of end-stage arthritis or deformity. Surgical treatments for these conditions include talonavicular joint (single) arthrodesis, talonavicular and subtalar (double) arthrodesis, or talonavicular, subtalar, and calcaneocuboid (triple) arthrodesis. This study evaluated the complication rate, revision surgery rate, and hardware removal rate for those treated with either single, double, or triple arthrodesis. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted for patients who underwent single ( Results: A total of 433 patients were identified, with 248 undergoing single arthrodesis, 67 undergoing double arthrodesis, and 118 undergoing triple arthrodesis. There was no significant difference between single, double, and triple arthrodesis in the rate of complications, hardware removals, revision surgeries, or 30-day readmission when controlling for confounding variables. However, a decrease in Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was found to be predictive of an increase in the revision surgery rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.85, Conclusion: We found no difference in the rate of complications, hardware removals, or revision surgeries in those undergoing single, double, or triple arthrodesis. Surprisingly we found that a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, indicating a healthier patient had a significant relationship with a higher rate of revision surgery. Further study including radiographic indications for surgery or the impact of overall health status on revision surgery rates may further elucidate the other components of this relationship. Level of Evidence: Level III, cohort study.
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.