ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Clinical outcomes of arthroscopic modified suture augmentation versus InternalBrace™ reconstruction in the treatment of chronic ankle instability.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt present, the modified suture augmentation (MSA) repair and the InternalBrace™ (IB) reconstruction techniques are commonly used for the treatment of chronic ankle instability (CAI). This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of the MSA repair and IB reconstruction techniques, providing a reference for clinical practice.
methodsAfter propensity score matching, 50 patients with CAI between May 2021 and May 2022 were included in this retrospective study. Of these, 26 underwent IB reconstruction surgery and 24 underwent MSA repair surgery. The American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, anterior drawer tests, and patient satisfaction were used for clinical efficacy evaluation.
resultsThe postoperative AOFAS scores in the MSA group (88.8 ± 3.0) were significantly higher than those in the IB group (84.3 ± 5.4, P = 0.001). However, the patient satisfaction scores in the IB group (7.3 ± 0.8) were higher than those in the MSA group (6.7 ± 0.8, P = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the anterior drawer test results and VAS scores (P < 0.05). In addition, regarding postoperative complications, only one patient (4.2%) in the MSA group had joint laxity.
conclusionsMSA repair was superior to IB reconstruction in terms of AOFAS scores. However, IB reconstruction was superior in terms of patient satisfaction. These findings highlight the potential of MSA repair and IB reconstruction techniques for the treatment of CAI.
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.