ArticleAdvances in orthopedics2025
Female Radiological Metatarsal Morphometry and Diameter Suitability of Intramedullary Implants Used for Midfoot Charcot.
Article in Advances in orthopedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Female Radiological Metatarsal Morphometry and Diameter Suitability of Intramedullary Implants Used for Midfoot Charcot.Advances in orthopedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Radiological biometrics of the metatarsal have been reported in few studies but mostly with no relevance to clinical settings. The smaller female metatarsal diameter could be an impediment for intramedullary implants. This study investigates female radiological metatarsal morphometry for diameter suitability of intramedullary implants used for midfoot Charcot fusion. Methods: Standing foot roentgenograms of 143 female patients were collected for radiological measurements. Cortical thickness at the metatarsal neck level was calculated by subtracting inner width from outer width values. After hypothetical reaming, inner width, outer width, and cortical thickness mean values were considered for suitability estimation. Implant suitability was deemed acceptable when (a) inner width values more than the cut-off value of 6 mm and/or (b) cortical thickness more than the cut-off value of 2 mm (1 mm on each cortex side). Results: The results were (a) inner width: M5 had a higher mean value when compared to M2, M3, and M4 ( Conclusion: Our study indicates for the first time a mismatch between the inner width of the lateral metatarsals at the neck level with the commercially available Charcot-specific IM implants for female patients.
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.