ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2025
2B or not 2B, should this not be the question? Comparison of 3D Surface Rendering CT to Plain Radiographs for Characterization of Posterior Malleolar Fracture Morphology.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to compare plain lateral radiographs and 3D surface rendering (SR) CT imaging, in the characterization of posterior malleolar fracture (PMF) morphology using the Mason and Molloy classification. The null hypothesis was that there was no difference in characterization of morphology between plain radiographs and 3D SR CT. Methods: Morphology of the PMF was categorized initially by the CT scan as classified by Mason and Molloy on 180 trimalleolar ankle fractures. PM fracture fragment size on the lateral radiograph were compared to their respective 3D surface rendering CT reconstructions, by two independent observers. Morphology of the PMF was assessed using all preoperative radiographs as compared to 3D SR CT. Results: On comparison of fracture fragment morphology, all fractures had poor categorization by plain radiographs although rotational pilon fractures (type 2A and 2B fractures) had the worse sensitivity and specificity (below 33% and below 50%, respectively). Radiographs underestimated joint involvement in type 2B fracture patterns because of the underappreciation of the posteromedial fragment. Conclusion: This study shows that the use of plain radiographs to categorize morphology of PMFs is poor. The study adds to the ever-growing body of evidence on the inaccuracy of using plain radiographs in PMFs to plan treatment. Additional CT imaging is imperative to allow for appropriate treatment planning in the management of PMF. Smaller fracture fragments are more susceptible to inaccuracies, especially the rotational pilon subtypes (2A and 2B) because of the obliquity of the posteromedial fragment to the plane of the X-ray source. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
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.