ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2026
Implications of Size and Gender for Implant Fit and Coverage in Total Ankle Replacement.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 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
Background: Success after total ankle replacement (TAR) requires accurate implant sizing so the tibial component achieves adequate cortical support. Implant fit is challenging in smaller and female patients because medial-lateral (ML) constraints may force selection of tibial components undersized in the anterior-posterior (AP) dimension, although this has not been investigated in arthritic ankles. This study sought to quantify distal tibia morphology in TAR patients and compare those measurements to implant dimensions. Methods: Ninety-nine consecutive TAR patients with preoperative weightbearing computed tomographic (CT) scan were retrospectively reviewed. Multiplanar reformatting aligned axial slices orthogonal to the tibial anatomical axis. Tibial AP length and ML width were measured at 8 and 10 mm resection depths. Manufacturer specifications for the implanted tibial tray were used to obtain AP and ML dimensions. Dimensional mismatch was defined as anatomic measurement minus implant dimension (negative = overhang, positive = undercoverage). Sex-based comparisons used unequal-variance Results: There were significant differences in implant coverage between genders. Tibial implants took up significantly greater amounts of the ML plane in women (mean 2.3 mm difference), Conclusion: In this cohort, we found that tibial trays consistently exceeded native AP dimensions while leaving limited ML clearance, particularly in smaller and female tibiae. These constraints may approach thresholds associated with medial malleolar fracture and gutter impingement. Implant systems decoupling AP and ML sizing or offering narrower ML options may better accommodate distal tibial morphology. Clinical implications remain to be established. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
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.