ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2024
Syndesmotic screws, unscrew them, or leave them? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Journal of 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Syndesmotic injuries are frequently stabilized using syndesmotic screws. Traditionally, these screws were routinely removed during the postoperative period, however recent literature has brought into question the necessity of routine removal, citing no change in functional outcomes and the inherent risks of a second surgery. Our study aimed to compare outcomes of patients undergoing routine syndesmotic screw removal versus those undergoing an on-demand approach to removal. Methods: A systematic search of studies comparing routine syndesmotic screw removal to on-demand screw removal following an acute ankle fracture, or an isolated syndesmotic injury was conducted across seven databases. Only Prospective randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Data reported on by at least 2 studies was pooled for analysis. Results: Three studies were identified that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. No significant difference in Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (MD -2.36, 95% CI -6.50 to 1.78, p = 0.26), American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Hindfoot Score (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.59 to .69, p = 0.44), or dorsiflexion (MD 2.20, 95% CI -0.50 to 4.89, p = 0.11) was found between the routine removal group and on-demand removal group at 1-year postoperatively. Routine removal was associated with a significantly higher rate of complications than on-demand removal (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.64 to 5.54, p = 0.0004). None of the included studies found significant differences in pain scores or range of motion by 1-year postoperatively. Conclusion: Given the increased risk of complications with routine syndesmotic screw removal and the comparable outcomes when screws are retained, an as-needed approach to syndesmotic screw removal should be considered.
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.