ArticleSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2026
Anatomic safety profile of a novel mini external fixator for proximal crescentic osteotomy in hallux valgus correction: a cadaveric study.
Article in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe proximal crescentic osteotomy is an effective procedure for hallux valgus correction, but stable fixation remains challenging. Our previous biomechanical study suggested that the MEF may offer comparable or greater stability than a specific cannulated screw fixation construct in a cadaveric model. This study aims to evaluate the anatomical safety of the MEF by investigating its relationship with critical neurovascular structures and tendons.
methodsAn anatomical dissection study was performed on ten foot cadaveric specimens. The MEF was applied using five mini-Schanz pins inserted in predefined positions. Following fixation, a layer-by-layer dissection was conducted to expose the dorsalis pedis artery, superficial cutanous branches of the foot, the superficial venous arch, and the extensor hallucis longus and brevis tendons. The distance from each pin to these structures and any iatrogenic injuries were recorded.
resultsThe superficial venous arch was injured at low rates by the medial distal pin (20%), the medial proximal pin (10%), and the lateral distal pin (20%). Tendon injury was more frequent, with the extensor hallucis longus tendon being injured by 20–30% of pins, and the extensor hallucis brevis tendon by the lateral intermediate and distal pins (20% each).
conclusionThe application of the MEF for first metatarsal fixation appears anatomically safe with respect to major arteries and nerves. The consistent avoidance of the dorsalis pedis artery and key sensory nerves is a significant advantage over some established techniques. However, surgeons should be aware of the potential risk to the superficial venous arch and extensor tendons during pin placement. These findings support further investigation of the MEF for proximal crescentic osteotomy fixation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41670686What 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.