ArticleBMC surgery2026
Comparative efficacy of double and triple arthrodesis in adult-acquired flatfoot deformity: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRigid adult-acquired flatfoot deformity (AAFD) often requires arthrodesis. While triple arthrodesis is standard, double arthrodesis has been proposed as an alternative. However, comparative evidence remains limited. This study compared their clinical efficacy, radiographic correction, and plantar pressure distribution.
methodsPatients who underwent double or triple arthrodesis for rigid AAFD in our department from April 2013 to December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes included AOFAS scores, Foot Function Index (FFI), radiographic parameters (Meary's angle [MA], talonavicular coverage angle [TCA], talus-first metatarsal angle [T1MA]), and plantar pressure measured via wireless insoles. Inter-group and intra-group comparisons were performed.
resultsTwenty-two patients were included (12 double, 10 triple arthrodesis). Baseline characteristics were comparable (all P > 0.05). Double arthrodesis had significantly shorter operative time (59.42 ± 6.05 vs. 85.80 ± 6.32 min, P < 0.001). Complication rates (16.67% vs. 10.00%, P = 1.0) and fusion time were similar, with 100% fusion in both groups. Both procedures significantly improved all functional and radiographic parameters (P < 0.05). AOFAS midfoot scores improved from 19.82 ± 6.97 to 73.83 ± 12.56 (double) and 23.80 ± 18.47 to 66.70 ± 16.65 (triple); hindfoot scores from 15.55 ± 11.57 to 68.75 ± 17.50 and 19.00 ± 17.83 to 69.60 ± 9.57; FFI decreased from 59.55 ± 13.77% to 22.58 ± 18.60% and 60.00 ± 16.26% to 33.50 ± 12.98%. Postoperative radiographic improvements included MA (23.53 ± 14.13° to 10.51 ± 6.90° double; 21.79 ± 9.24° to 10.32 ± 7.75° triple), TCA (13.20 ± 7.65° to 4.84 ± 4.72°; 9.80 ± 6.98° to 4.84 ± 4.88°), and T1MA (22.83 ± 12.00° to 11.49 ± 8.39°; 24.66 ± 9.41° to 10.26 ± 5.20°), with no significant inter-group differences. Plantar pressure showed postoperative symmetry between operated and healthy feet in both groups, with inter-group differences only in the lateral plantar region (P = 0.037) and entire sole (P = 0.048) before correction for multiple comparisons; neither remained significant after correction.
conclusionsIn this small cohort, no statistically significant differences were detected between the two procedures in short- to mid-term functional, radiographic, or plantar pressure outcomes, although operative time was shorter for double arthrodesis. Double arthrodesis may be considered a reasonable alternative in appropriately selected patients without significant CCJ involvement. However, these findings are exploratory and require confirmation in larger prospective studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level Ⅲ.
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.