ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Radiological characteristics and injury mechanism of Logsplitter injury: a descriptive and retrospective study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLogsplitter Injury is a type of high-energy ankle fracture dislocation. The mechanism of injury has not been described in detail. A detailed understanding of the radiological features and pathological changes can further guide treatment.
methodsBetween April 2009 and December 2018, a retrospective analysis was conducted on 62 patients with Logsplitter injury. The study analysed the characteristics of fibular injury, tibial injury, syndesmosis injury, medial injury and lateral ligament injury on preoperative X-ray and CT scans. The incidence of the different injury types was summarised. The correlation between Logsplitter injuries and the mechanisms causing them were analysed using the Lauge-Hansen classification of ankle fractures.
resultsThe study provides data on the types of fractures observed. Of the total fractures, 98.4% were open fractures. The fibula injuries were classified as no fracture (1.6%), transverse or short oblique fractures (61.3%), butterfly fragments (25.8%), and comminuted fractures (11.3%). The tibial injuries included compression of lateral articular surfaces (38.7%) and posterior compressions (6.5%). Medial injuries, including medial malleolar fractures, accounted for 87.1%, and deltoid ligament rupture accounted for 12.9%. The study found that injuries to the syndesmosis consisted of simple ligament ruptures (11.3%), Tillaux fractures (8.1%), Volkmann fractures (43.5%), and Tillaux and Volkmann fractures (37.1%). In 12.9% of cases, there was a complete rupture of the lateral collateral ligament. Based on the Lauge-Hansen classification, 87.1% of injuries were pronation-abduction injuries, while 8.1% were pronation and external rotation injuries, and 1.6% were supination external rotation injuries. Furthermore, 3.2% of cases could not be classified.
conclusionThe pathoanatomic characteristics of Logsplitter injury are diverse, with some cases accompanied by collateral ligament injury. It is important to note that these evaluations are objective and based on current results. The most common injury mechanism is vertical violence combined with abduction, although in some cases, it may be a vertical combined external-rotation injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: (4) case series.
trial registrationThis study has been approved by the ethical research committee of the Honghui Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, under the code: 202,003,002.
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.