ArticleCureus2025
Unicortical Versus Bicortical Screw Fixation for Medial Malleolus Fractures: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
Ankle fractures are common lower extremity injuries often involving the medial malleolus, a critical stabilizer of the ankle mortise. Screw fixation is the standard treatment, but the choice between unicortical and bicortical screw techniques remains debated. This retrospective study evaluates clinical outcomes of unicortical versus bicortical screw fixation in medial malleolus fractures over a four-year period at a Level 1 trauma center. In this study, 137 adult patients were included, with 95 undergoing unicortical fixation and 42 bicortical fixation. The primary outcome was early radiological union at three months. Delayed union rates were similar between groups (unicortical 9%, bicortical 7%, p=0.656). No significant differences in complications or secondary procedures were observed. Despite biomechanical advantages of bicortical screws, our data suggests comparable clinical effectiveness for both techniques. Further prospective studies with longer follow-up and functional outcomes are warranted.
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.