ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
Survey of management of ankle fracture blisters in Yorkshire among orthopaedic surgeons.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The management of ankle fracture blisters is contentious. This study aims to evaluate the management of ankle fracture blisters among orthopedic surgeons in Yorkshire and establish a consensus. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed among Orthopaedic Surgeons in Yorkshire, United Kingdom, to gain insight into their management of ankle fracture blisters. Responses were processed in Excel spreadsheet, chi-squared analysis was done, comparing the responses of foot and ankle surgeons with other orthopaedic surgeons. Results: There were 69 respondents (58 % of whom were consultants, 7 % associate specialists and 35 % registrars) out of 125 surgeons invited to participate (55.2 % response rate). 17 were foot and ankle surgeons. For most respondents, the type of blister (haemorrhagic or serosanguinous) does not affect decision around timing of surgery. 76 % say that blister location affects the placement of skin incision. 19 % would make their skin incisions irrespective of blister location and 5 % had variable responses to this. 43 surgeons would defer the surgical fixation of the fracture if the blister were at the incision site, while 22 (32 %) would defer surgery if blister is extensive, but not as incision site. If surgery is deferred because of the blister, 52 % will wait till skin creases return while others would wait a variable period. While waiting, 67 % would immobilize with a plaster cast if appropriate, 56 % would use an external fixator. 65 % think that blisters increase the risk of infection, however, 97 % will not prescribe any systemic antibiotics for ankle fracture blisters. The most preferred dressing for blisters is Inadine and Mepitel. Conclusion: Majority of Orthopaedic Surgeons in Yorkshire consider ankle fracture blisters to be significant in determining the management of patients with ankle fractures; however significantly more foot and ankle surgeons opine that blisters should not cause delay in definitive fixation of ankle fractures.
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.