ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Routine intramedullary screw versus plate fixation of lateral malleolus fractures.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare outcomes of patients treated by a single surgeon before and after adoption of routine intramedullary screw (IMS) fixation of lateral malleolus ankle fractures.
methodsA retrospective study was performed at a Level 1 trauma center of skeletally mature patients with displaced lateral malleolus fractures treated by a single surgeon. Patients treated before and after adoption of routine IMS fixation were compared with an intention-to-treat analysis, regardless of fixation type, to evaluate for differences in clinical outcomes.
resultsThere were 123 patients included. The median patient age was 38.0 years (interquartile range 28.0-54.0) and 47.9% (59/123) were male. There were 83 patients treated before the practice change and 40 patients treated after. Patients treated after the practice change were similar in age, high-energy mechanisms, body mass index, comorbidities, and fracture type (p > 0.05). The practice change group had a shorter median follow-up time (3.8 vs. 5.6 months, p = 0.01), more IMS fixation (80% vs. 8.4%, p < 0.0001), less syndesmotic fixation (40.0% vs. 71.1%, p = 0.0009), lower implant costs ($52 vs. $307, p < 0.0001), less operative time (64.0 vs. 95.0 min, p < 0.0001), less estimated blood loss (20.0 vs. 30.0 ml, p = 0.0005), and had no difference in anatomic reductions (87.5% vs. 80.7%; p = 0.21), complications (20.0% vs. 33.7%, p = 0.11), or reoperations (10.0% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.37). The practice change group was less likely to have a symptomatic implant removal other than a syndesmotic screw (i.e. plates, IMS) (0.0% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.04).
conclusionRoutine IMS fixation decreased symptomatic plate removals, costs, operative time, and blood loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, Level III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40448862What 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.