ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024
Comparison of two versus three-screw fixation for biplanar chevron medial malleolar osteotomy.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study was designed to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of using two versus three screws to fix the biplanar chevron medial malleolar osteotomy (MMO). PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective review was conducted on 43 patients (46 ankles) who underwent biplanar chevron MMO to treat talus osteochondral lesions. Of these, MMO was fixed with two parallel screws placed perpendicular to the osteotomy plane in 16 ankles, while in the remaining 30 ankles, MMO was secured with two parallel screws plus an additional third screw inserted parallel to the tibial plafond. Patients were divided into two groups based on the fixation method and clinical outcomes, union and malunion rates, and complications were compared.
resultsDemographic and clinical characteristics such as age (p: 0.411), gender distribution (p: 0.119), affected side (p: 0.126), lesion grades (p: 0.056), and lesion sizes (p: 0.310), immobilization (p: 0.119) and weight-bearing periods (p: 0.252) were statistically similar across both groups. Initial malreduction were observed in five cases within the three-screw group and one case in the two-screw group (p: 0.307). However, neither group exhibited any progressive step-off or gap in the follow-up radiographs, and osteotomy union was achieved in all patients. Delayed union was observed in one patient from the three-screw group. Significant improvements in American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society scores were observed in both groups, with no functional discrepancies evident at the final follow-up (p: 0.488).
conclusionsThe study found no significant differences in union rates, complications, or clinical outcomes between two and three-screw fixation methods for medial malleolar osteotomies (MMO). Both methods allowed for effective MMO fixation without loss or displacement post-surgery, suggesting their safety and efficacy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparison.
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.