Intramedullary implant exchange and adequate soft tissue coverage in exposed implants following fracture related infection in operatively treated ankle fractures.

R B Beks, P van Oosten, D van Embden, M Botman, T Schepers

Abstract readCase Reports

In one paragraph

Article in Trauma case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

R B BeksAmsterdam UMC, Trauma Unit, Meibergdreef 9, PO Box 22660, The Netherlands.

P van OostenAmsterdam UMC, Department of Plastic Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, PO Box 22660, The Netherlands.

D van EmbdenAmsterdam UMC, Trauma Unit, Meibergdreef 9, PO Box 22660, The Netherlands.

M BotmanAmsterdam UMC, Department of Plastic Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, PO Box 22660, The Netherlands.

T SchepersAmsterdam UMC, Trauma Unit, Meibergdreef 9, PO Box 22660, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ankle fractures are common with an increasing incidence due to aging populations. A major complication after surgery for ankle fractures is deep infection, which requires additional treatments and adversely affect long-term outcomes. Treatment of fracture-related infections focuses on achieving fracture union and may involve either retaining or removing the implant, depending on the stability of the implant, with early involvement of a plastic surgeon crucial for adequate tissue coverage. This study presents four cases demonstrating the successful use of intramedullary screw fixation of the fibula to stabilize partially healed fractures, reduce implant load and improve soft tissue coverage in patients with fracture-related infection after operatively treated ankle fractures. Therefore, exchange to intramedullary screw fixation should be considered in patients with fracture related infection of the fibula to reduce the bacterial load of foreign material and allow for better soft tissue coverage and healing.

Indexed as

Fracture related infectionImplant exchangeIntramedullary screw fixation

Identifiers

PMID40511264

DOI10.1016/j.tcr.2025.101206

PMCPMC12156265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.