ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2025
A CT-Validated Comparative Analysis of Fixation Constructs for Hindfoot Arthrodesis: Fusion and Complication Rates.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hindfoot arthrodesis is a procedure commonly performed to address degenerative changes and/or malalignment of the hindfoot, yet robust literature comparing traditional and modern constructs is sparse. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of nitinol staples in hindfoot arthrodesis as compared to isolated screws and combined staple and screw constructs. Methods: A 10-year retrospective review of all patients undergoing hindfoot arthrodesis at our institution was performed. Hindfoot arthrodesis was defined as either a triple (subtalar, talonavicular, and calcaneocuboid), double (subtalar + talonavicular), or isolated arthrodesis. Outcomes included fusion success rate and reoperation rate. A postoperative CT confirming the presence or absence of osseous bridging was required for inclusion in the fusion outcome analysis. Results: We assessed 113 patients who underwent arthrodesis procedures across 128 joints in the hindfoot. There was no significant difference in functional outcomes between screws, staples, or the combination screw and staple constructs used in hindfoot arthrodesis. However, screws alone were associated with a significantly higher complication rate than staple-only fixation ( Conclusion: Nitinol staples are effective in hindfoot arthrodesis with respect to fusion success rate and may be associated with decreased revision rates compared with traditional screws only or staple plus screw constructs. Larger studies will be necessary to validate these findings and contribute to an assessment of the usage of these nascent constructs in hindfoot arthrodesis. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort 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.