ArticleBrain & spine2026
A comparison of conservative versus surgical treatment in patients with foot drop due to peroneal nerve entrapment: results of a prematurely terminated randomized controlled trial.
Article in Brain & spine, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with foot drop due to peroneal nerve entrapment are treated with either conservative or surgical approaches, yet the optimal strategy remains unclear due to limited evidence. We aim to investigate whether neurolysis of the peroneal nerve is superior to conservative treatment. Methods: This multicenter randomized controlled trial aimed to compare maximal conservative treatment with peroneal nerve neurolysis in patients with persistent foot drop (6 to 14 weeks post-onset). The primary endpoint was the change in distance covered during the 6-min walk test (6MWD) between randomization and 9 months. Secondary outcomes including time to recovery, gait, muscle strength, surgical complications, electrodiagnostics, and quality of life, were assessed at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months and 18 months. Results: The study ended prematurely due to recruitment challenges, with only 26 patients were randomized across 7 centers (12 to conservative treatment, 14 to surgery). No significant difference in 6MWD was observed at 9 months (564 m in the conservative group vs. 480 in the surgical group). Time to recovery which was faster in the conservative group (p = 0.02). Both groups showed improvements in muscle strength, gait and quality of life. Conclusion: Recruitment difficulties stemmed from the condition's low incidence, strict eligibility criteria and high spontaneous recovery rate. Despite the trial's termination, results suggest clinical equipoise and good outcome regardless of treatment choice. Further research is needed to determine the role and timing of neurolysis.
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.