ArticleOrthopedic reviews2024
Lateral ligament reconstruction and additive medial ligament reconstruction in chronic ankle instability: a retrospective study.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 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
Background: Ligamentous lesions of the ankle joint are common. Isolated medial ligament injuries are rare but are often associated with lateral ligament injuries, isolated medial ligament lesions are often overlooked. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical and functional differences in the outcomes of isolated lateral and combined medial and lateral ligament reconstruction. The study is based on patient-reported outcome measurements and motion sensor technology to assess these outcomes. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of isolated lateral and combined lateral and medial ankle ligament reconstruction. Methods: From December 2014 to August 2018, 111 patients underwent either isolated lateral ligament (LG) or medial and lateral ligament (MLG) reconstruction. Of the 104 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 49 had LG and 55 had MLG reconstruction. Outcome measures included the Short Form-36 Health Survey SF-36, Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAMG), Tegner Activity Scale, the European Foot and Ankle Society (EFAS), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ancle Society (AOFAS) hindfoot score, and the Karlsson Peterson Score. Mobility and stability were assessed using the Ortheligent™ motion sensor for both healthy and treated ankles. Results: While there were no significant differences in outcome scores between the groups, overall scores improved after treatment (p >0.00). Notably LG showed improved movement, with better dorsal extension measured by the Sensor (p ÷ 0.02). The sensor's results correlated significantly with FAOS subscales for pain (p ÷0.05), stiffness (p ÷ 0.01), ADL (p ÷0.02), and sports (p >0.00). Conclusion: Postoperative results, regardless of LG or MLG, showed significant subjective well-being improvement. LG's advantages were highlighted by a significant improvement in dorsal extension, supported by correlated results from a portable motion sensor assessing ankle stability.
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.