ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2024
Comparing Patient Communication Event Demand for External Ring Fixators to Other Common Foot and Ankle Orthopaedic Procedures: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgeons may hesitate to apply external ring fixators (ERFs) due to perceived high clinical burden. This study aims to quantify the relative demand of ERFs compared with other common foot and ankle procedures. Understanding the demand of ERFs can provide insights into postoperative experiences, potentially decreasing intimidation of their use.
methodsPatients undergoing ERF treatment, hallux valgus osteotomy (HVO), or lateral ligamentous reconstruction (LLR) were identified using current procedural terminology code search in a single surgeon database. A retrospective review at a single institution included patients undergoing one of the three surgeries between 2017 and 2023. Clinical burden was quantified using points of contact for each procedure, which included phone calls, portal messages/documented emails, in-person visits, and surgeries. Visits and surgeries were categorized as routine or unexpected. Quantified burden was then compared among the three groups.
resultsOne hundred ninety-four patients were included in the study (81 LLR, 64 HVO, 49 ERF), and data were collected within 6-month postoperation. ERFs had 2.27 more total clinic visits than HVO (6.91 vs. 4.64; P < 0.0001) and 2.80 more than LLR (6.91 vs. 4.11; P < 0.0001). Overall, 0.42 more unexpected clinic visits were observed for ERF than for HVO (0.94 vs. 0.52; P = 0.06) and 0.84 more than LLR (0.94 vs. 0.1; P < 0.0001). An average of 0.6 unexpected surgeries were observed for ERF, compared with 0.09 for HVO (P < 0.0001) and 0 for LLR (P < 0.0001).
conclusionPatients with an ERF did have more frequent encounters compared with control groups. This study provides guidance about the extent of potential clinical burden of ERF. Whether this increase is clinically notable would be to the discretion of the treating surgeon.
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.