ReviewCureus2026
Stability at a Cost: Evaluating Postoperative Complications in Bioabsorbable vs. Metallic Syndesmotic Fixation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of bioabsorbable screws for syndesmotic fixation in complex ankle fractures has become increasingly popular, as they may eliminate the need for secondary surgeries for implant removal. However, their efficacy when compared against metallic screws is unclear, with some persisting concerns of higher complication rates compared to the traditional metallic option. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed and Google Scholar, yielding 332 studies. After title and abstract screening followed by full-text review, eligible randomized controlled trials comparing bioabsorbable versus metallic screw fixation in ankle syndesmotic injuries were included. The total rate of postoperative complications was primarily assessed. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Four studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, encompassing 257 patients. The pooled data demonstrated a significantly higher risk of complications with bioabsorbable screw fixation, including revision surgery, infection, and symptomatic hardware removal, compared to metallic screws (RR 3.35, 95% CI 1.75-6.42, p = 0.0003). Range-of-motion outcomes varied across studies but showed no clear superiority of either fixation method. The increased complication rate with bioabsorbable screws raises concerns about routine use in syndesmotic fixation. Although previous studies have suggested comparable functional outcomes and fewer reoperations due to implant removal, the current data underscore the importance of prioritizing safety and reliability. Given the risk of inflammatory reactions and hardware failure seen in bioabsorbable groups, metallic screws remain the more dependable option. Future research should focus on improving the biomechanical and biocompatibility profiles of absorbable materials before they are widely adopted in clinical use.
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.