ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Fibula single-tunnel versus fibula double-tunnel for both anterior talofibular ligament and calcaneofibular ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnatomic ligament repair surgery, despite being a tremendous technical challenge in treating chronic lateral ankle instability patients, remains the gold standard for this condition. The fibula single-tunnel and double-tunnel techniques are effective for intraoperative reconstruction of the anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) and calcaneofibular ligament (CFL). However, which approach is more appropriate is a subject of debate.
methodsTwelve fresh frozen cadaveric ankles were randomly divided into 2 groups of 6 specimens: fibula single-tunnel reconstruction group and fibula double-tunnel reconstruction group. The specimens were tested for ankle joint laxity on the plane radiographs with 150 N anterior drawer force and 150 N varus stress force. The anterior talar displacement and talar tilt angle were measured at states of intact, cut and reconstruction of both ATFL and CFL. Then, the reconstructed specimens were loaded to ultimate failure to determine the strength and stiffness of each construct.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups in the anterior talar displacement and talar tilt angle at the states of intact, cut and reconstruction of both the ATFL and CFL. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the ultimate load failure and stiffness after reconstruction of both the ATFL and CFL.
conclusionsIn patients undergoing ligament reconstruction surgery for ankle instability, both single-tunnel reconstruction of the fibula and double-tunnel reconstruction of the fibula were able to achieve better results. There was no significant difference between these two surgical procedures in our study. The long-term survival of the ankle joint after both techniques remains to be studied.
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.