Trial reportArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Correction of lesser toe deformities: minimally invasive versus open surgery-a prospective randomised study.
Trial report in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Minimally invasive lesser toe surgery].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Review
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
objectiveTo compare soft and hard outcome measures after minimally invasive (MIS) and open (OS) surgical treatment of lesser toe deformities. It was hypothesised that MIS would be associated with fewer complications and comparable subjective and objective results.
methodsA prospective randomised controlled study was designed. One hundred patients were included consecutively and allotted via block randomisation to two groups. The presence of co-pathologies at the forefoot and midfoot, which were treated simultaneously, was not an exclusion criterion. However, these cases were analysed to ensure an equal distribution across the study groups. Patients were evaluated clinically, functionally, and radiologically prior to surgery and at a 1.5-year follow-up. Additionally, they were asked about their personal satisfaction via patient-reported outcome measures.
resultsThe distribution of co-pathologies at the foot was not significantly different between the two study groups. The same is true of co-morbidities. Significantly more wound complications, including infections, were found in the open surgery group (p = 0.029). K-wire issues were distributed equally between the groups, but differed in their clinical manifestation (p = 0.03). Only seven out of the 95 patients finally examined were dissatisfied with their long-term results, with an equal distribution between both groups (four MIS vs. three OS, p = 0.914). Clinical and radiological corrections of the lesser toes were comparable in both groups, but the open surgery (OS) group showed significantly more non-unions (p = 0.0013). Functional evaluation via the FFI-D (Foot Function Index Germany), a reliable, validated, internationally used, standardised questionnaire to assess the correlation between foot deformity and function, demonstrated relevant postoperative improvement in all patients, with no difference between the two technical approaches (p = 0.460).
conclusionLesser toe surgery is a low-risk treatment with good overall results. MIS offers equivalent clinical outcomes to OS with a lower risk of complications in terms of soft tissue and bone healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1 Prospective randomised controlled study. TRN DKRS00034137 25/04/2024.
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.