ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2025
Circular External Fixation Use Among Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgeons: A National Survey Study.
Article in Foot & ankle 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
Background: Despite the safety and versatility of circular external fixators (CEFs) for many indications, there is limited information on their contemporary usage and the factors contributing to their potential underutilization. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of contemporary CEF use, characterize barriers to adoption, and identify potential solutions among American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) members. Methods: A multibranched survey was designed for distribution to all active practicing members of the AOFAS to collect data on demographics, training background, CEF usage profile, provider opinions, barriers to device adoption, and factors that could encourage greater use. Data were collected through Qualtrics XM. Statistical analysis analyzing respondent differences included descriptive statistics, χ Results: Of 169 participants, 27.81% reported not using CEFs in their practice despite 94.08% of respondents agreeing that their use is critical for certain patients. Overall, 70.21% of nonusers believed it could have a role in their practice but had hesitations. In addition, 59.76% of participants received minimal to no exposure in residency, and this was a significant predictor for current usage ( Conclusion: Perceived lengthy operative time, postoperative burden, and lack of postoperative management confidence were predominant reasons for the lack of CEF use. This survey suggests that these barriers could be addressed by more exposure during training, attending non-industry-sponsored courses, and longitudinal mentorship. Level of Evidence: Level IV, cross-sectional study.
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.