ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2024
Primary Arthrodesis or Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lisfranc injuries are often managed surgically with primary arthrodesis (PA) or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF); however, neither approach has been shown to be superior. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the functional and surgical outcomes of PA and ORIF in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries. Methods: This study was performed as per the PRISMA protocol. Database searches were conducted on Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed libraries. Five RCTs were identified for inclusion involving 241 patients, of which 121 underwent PA and 120 underwent ORIF. Results: Statistically significant differences in visual analog scale pain score at 2 years (mean difference 0.89, 95% CI 0.18-1.59), patient satisfaction (OR 10.04, 95% CI 1.78-56.76), and all-cause return to surgery (OR 27.31, 95% CI 12.72-58.63) were observed, all favoring PA. There were no statistically significant differences between PA and ORIF with regard to American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society midfoot scores at 2 years, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores, and unplanned return to surgery. Conclusion: This study showed significant improvement in pain at 2 years, patient satisfaction, and all-cause return to surgery favoring PA in all instances. Given ORIF often necessitates a second operation for hardware removal, it is to be expected that all-cause return to surgery is higher in ORIF groups. Overall, these results do not have the power to confer an advantage to a particular approach because of significant heterogeneity. Further studies should focus on larger patient cohorts and longer follow-up, or analysis stratified by patient demographics and injury presentation. In the absence of clinically significant differences, cost-benefit analyses should be considered to answer the question of whether to "fix or fuse" for Lisfranc injuries.
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.