SynthesisFoot & ankle international2026
Outcomes of Internal, External, and Hybrid Fixation in Hindfoot Charcot Neuroarthropathy: A Descriptive Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-analysis of Observational Studies.
Synthesis in Foot & ankle international, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCharcot neuroarthropathy (CN) of the hindfoot often requires internal fixation (IF), external fixation (EF), or hybrid constructs. This descriptive systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis summarizes outcomes of these strategies, focusing on amputation, fusion, ambulation, and complications.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, 30 studies with 957 patients undergoing hindfoot or ankle reconstruction were included. A single-arm meta-analysis assessed amputation and fusion rates; qualitative analysis examined ambulation, infection, ulceration, hardware failure, and revision. Heterogeneity was quantified with
resultsUnder random effects models, the overall amputation rate across all fixation methods was 4.76% (95% CI: 1.79%-8.62%), and the pooled fusion rate was 80.8% (95% CI: 73.6%-87.1%). By fixation type, EF cohorts showed numerically higher amputation rates (8.11%; 95% CI: 2.32%-15.91%) than IF (4.53%; 95% CI: 0.98%-9.69%) and hybrid fixation (2.94%; 95% CI: 0.00%-12.63%). EF demonstrated a lower fusion rate (68.2%; 95% CI: 55.8%-79.6%) than IF (84.9%; 95% CI: 75.8%-92.5%) and hybrid constructs (85.8%; 95% CI: 75.1%-94.4%). Return to ambulation was comparable between fixation strategies. IF cohorts reported fewer soft tissue complications but higher hardware failure (24.1%) and revision (21.9%) rates, whereas EF cohorts experienced frequent pin tract problems (24.0%). Hybrid constructs showed higher infection (23.2%), hardware complications (33.3%), and revision (18.8%). Substantial between-study heterogeneity and likely selection bias were present.
conclusionAcross 30 observational studies (957 patients; 970 feet), pooled single-arm estimates indicate that limb salvage and osseous fusion were achieved in most cases across internal, external, and hybrid fixation. External fixation was typically selected for infected or more complex reconstructions and was associated with higher amputation and lower fusion proportions, whereas internal and hybrid constructs showed higher fusion with more hardware-related reoperations. Given substantial heterogeneity and confounding by indication, these patterns should be viewed as descriptive rather than comparative; they do not establish indications or superiority.
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.