ArticleInternational orthopaedics2024
Comparison of the medial midline and the anterolateral portal in ankle arthroscopy for the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the medial talus.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anterolateral and accessory anterolateral portals are safe to avoid subcutaneous nerve injury during subtalar arthroscopy-Definition of safe zones for standard lateral portals.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the clinical efficacy and complication rates between the medial midline and anterolateral portals in ankle arthroscopy for treating medial osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients with medial OLTs who underwent either a dual medial approach (via the medial midline and anteromedial portal) or a traditional approach (via the anterolateral and anteromedial portal) between June 2017 and January 2023. The degree of injury was evaluated by radiographs, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS), the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) scoring system. The incidence of postoperative complications, including superficial peroneal nerve (SPN) injury, was evaluated in all patients.
resultsThere were 39 patients in total; 16 patients underwent the dual medial approach, and 23 patients underwent the traditional approach. The mean age was 39.4 ± 9.0 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 18.7 ± 6.4 months. The clinical outcomes improved significantly in both groups (*P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). Postoperative complications were mainly SPN injury. The incidence of SPN injury was 13.0% in the traditional approach group and 0% in the dual medial approach group, with no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05), but a trend of reduction in SPN injury was observed in the dual medial approach group.
conclusionThe dual medial approach can also treat medial OLTs well, providing clear visualization and more convenient operation and reducing the possibility of injury to the SPN compared with the traditional approach. Therefore, we consider that the MM portal would be a good alternative to the anterolateral portal in treating medial OLTs.
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.