Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39668533›Full record

ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2024

Comparison of screw fixation and dynamic fixation in the treatment of ankle fractures with syndesmotic ruptures.

Erdal Güngör, Niyazi Ercan, Sancar Alp Ovalı, Mehmet Yağız Ayduğan, Hikmet Çetin

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Erdal GüngörDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Medipol University Bahçelievler Hospital, İstanbul-Türkiye.
Niyazi ErcanDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Yuksek Ihtisas University Güven Hospital, Ankara-Türkiye.
Sancar Alp OvalıDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Bülent Ecevit University Zonguldak-Türkiye.
Mehmet Yağız AyduğanDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Haymana State Hospital, Ankara-Türkiye.
Hikmet ÇetinDepartment of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Medipol University Hospital, İstanbul-Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSyndesmosis injuries in ankle fractures can significantly impact patient mobility and recovery, making the choice of fixation method crucial for optimal outcomes. This study aimed to compare the quality of reduction and functional results between screw fixation and dynamic fixation in treating syndesmosis injuries in ankle fractures.

methodsThis cohort study included 48 patients (28 males, 20 females) with an ankle fracture accompanied by syndesmosis injury. Twenty-four patients were treated with single-level TightRope fixation, while another 24 patients received single 3.5-mm cortical screw fixation. The clinical outcomes were measured using the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, and the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI).

resultsThe mean age of the patients was 37.3±15.1 years. The mean follow-up period was 27.6±13.5 months. There were no significant differences between the groups treated with syndesmotic screw or TightRope in terms of the mean postoperative one-year AOFAS score (89.0 and 86.0, respectively), OMAS (84.5 and 85.1, respectively), and FADI (85.4 and 86.8, respectively). The difference between preoperative and postoperative VAS scores was statistically significant (p=0.020). At the first-year follow-up, the median medial clear space was 4.3 mm (range: 2.1 to 5.7 mm) and 4.3 mm (range: 2.3 to 5.7 mm) in the two groups, respectively. The median tibiofibular clear space was 4.8 mm (range: 3.4 to 6.4 mm) in the screw fixation group and 5.1 mm (range: 4.0 to 6.8 mm) in the dynamic fixation group. Meanwhile, the median tibiofibular overlap was 7.8 mm (range: 4.2 to 10.4 mm) and 7.9 mm (range: 4.4 to 10.9 mm) for the screw fixation and dynamic fixation groups, respectively, one year post-surgery.

conclusionThe dynamic fixation method is as functional as the screw fixation method. Early full weight-bearing and improved pain control were noted as advantages of dynamic fixation compared to screw fixation.

Indexed as

Ankle FracturesAnkle InjuriesBone ScrewsFracture Fixation, InternalAdultCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRuptureTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39668533
PMCPMC11849883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.