ArticleBone & joint open2025
The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study : a national multicentre retrospective review of practice in implant choice, fixation methods, and outcomes in fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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
76 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: In fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures, the AO Foundation advocates using a lag screw and one-third tubular neutralization plate for simple patterns. Where a lag screw cannot be placed, bridging fixation is required. A local pilot service evaluation previously identified variance in use of locking plates in all patterns with significant cost implications. The Fracture Ankle Implant Review (FAIR) study aimed to evaluate current practice and implant use across the UK, and review outcomes and complication rates between different fibula fixation methods. Methods: The study was supported by CORNET, the North East orthopaedic trainee research collaborative, and the British Orthopaedic Trainee Association (BOTA). Data were collected using REDCap software from 22 centres in the UK retrospectively for a one-year period between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019 on injury mechanism, fracture characteristics, comorbidities, fixation, and complications. Follow-up data were collected to at least two years from surgery. Results: A total of 1,471 ankle fractures which involved fixation of the fibula were analyzed; a one-third tubular plate was used in 883 cases (59.7%), a locking plate in 470 cases (31.8%), and other methods in 118 cases (8.1%). There was significant difference between centres (p < 0.001) in terms of the implant type which was used. Other factors associated with implant type were age, diabetes, osteoporosis, open fractures, and comminuted fractures. Incidence of lateral wound breakdown and infection was higher in locking plates than one-third tubular plates (Lateral wound breakdown p = 0.008, Infection p = 0.039) in AO44B fractures. There was no significant difference in nonunion, fixation failure, or removal of metalware. Conclusion: There is significant variation in practice in the UK in implant use for fixation of the fibula in ankle fractures. If a locking plate is used unnecessarily, where a one-third tubular shows equivalent outcomes, this incurs additional cost and may increase the risk of lateral wound complications. We would encourage surgeons with high locking plate usage to evaluate their own unit's practice against these data.
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.