ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2025
Removal of Metalwork After Lisfranc Fracture-Dislocation Internal Fixation: A Retrospective Study from a Major Trauma Centre with More Than 2 Years of Follow-Up.
Article in Indian journal of 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Lisfranc injuries are considered rare but significant injuries. There are debates about the best treatment approach, and removal of metalwork is one of them. This study aims to compare the functional outcomes and complications of patients who had the removal of metalwork after Lisfranc fixation and those who retained it. Materials and Methods: This study was a retrospective review of patients admitted from 01/01/2017 to 31/07/2020 at University Hospitals of Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, UK, who had internal fixation for Lisfranc injuries. Group A were patients who had retained metalwork, and group B were patients who had metalwork removed. In subgroup B1, removal of metalwork was planned, whilst this was unplanned in subgroup B2. The primary outcome was the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) at the final follow-up. The secondary outcome was the rate of complications. Results: Initial search showed 124 patients. Forty-two patients were included in the study after the exclusion. The average age was 44.6 years (range 19-77 years; SD 15.4). The average follow-up was 57 months (range 33-78 months; SD 14). Eighteen patients (43%) responded to the final telephone appointments for MOXFQ. There was no statistically significant difference in all domains and the Index of MOXFQ between both groups. Relative risks were 0.16 to 2.38 across the range of complications, but none of them was statistically significant Conclusion: We conclude that there was no functional difference between removal and retention of metalwork in Lisfranc fracture dislocation. We recommend removal of metalwork only if indicated. Close follow-up is necessary for the patients to assess the potential complications.
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.