ArticleBMC surgery2026
Surgical management of arcuate (proximal fibular head) avulsion fractures: a scoping review of techniques and outcomes.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis scoping review aims to map and describe the range of surgical techniques used in the management of arcuate fractures (proximal fibular head avulsion fractures) and to summarize their reported outcomes and complications.
methodsA scoping review was conducted using a literature search across Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science, up to 8 December 2025, following PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. All eligible studies were case reports or small case series. Eligibility criteria included English-language articles reporting the surgical management of arcuate fractures and postoperative outcomes.
resultsTwelve studies involving 90 patients were included. Three fixation strategies were recorded: suture anchor fixation in 29 patients (32.2%), tension-based techniques in 23 patients (25.6%), and screw-and-washer fixation in 38 patients (42.2%). Radiographic union was explicitly reported in 25 of 29 anchor-treated patients, 18 of 24 fractures treated with tension-based constructs, and all screw-and-washer cases; however, reporting was incomplete and nonuniform. Complications and reoperations were most frequently described in tension-based reports, which also included severe and heterogeneous injury patterns. Standardized patient-reported outcomes were sparse, and rehabilitation protocols varied. Methodological appraisal identified recurrent limitations in case selection, completeness of reporting, and outcome assessment.
conclusionEvidence for operative FHAF management remains limited to heterogeneous case reports and small case series. Radiographic healing was frequently reported across fixation constructs, but inconsistent reporting and variation in injury severity, associated procedures, and rehabilitation preclude reliable comparison between techniques. Fixation should be individualized according to fragment size and morphology, fragment quality, soft-tissue repairability, and associated ligamentous injuries. Standardized multicentre studies are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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.