ArticleSICOT-J2026
Effectiveness of internal fixation versus arthrodesis on posttraumatic metatarsal-cuneiform joint dislocation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in SICOT-J, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe metatarsal-cuneiform joint, part of the Lisfranc complex, is essential for midfoot stability, load distribution, and gait mechanics. Injuries, often from high-energy trauma such as traffic accidents or falls, can lead to chronic instability, pain, and functional impairment. Despite accounting for only 0.2% of fractures, Lisfranc injuries are frequently missed in initial diagnosis. Surgical management typically involves internal fixation (IF) to preserve mobility or arthrodesis for permanent stability, yet evidence on their long-term effectiveness remains conflicting, highlighting the need for comparative evaluation.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Medline, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from January 2015 to June 2025. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 441 patients (284 IF, 157 arthrodesis). Primary outcomes were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score; secondary outcomes included recovery time and reoperation rate. Data were pooled using mean differences (MD) and percentages with corresponding p-values.
resultsArthrodesis yielded significantly higher AOFAS scores compared with IF (85.40 ± 5.51 vs 83.96 ± 5.67; MD = +1.44; p = 0.001) and lower VAS pain scores (1.31 ± 1.2 vs 2.56 ± 1.5; MD = -1.26; p = 0.038). Mean recovery time was shorter in the arthrodesis group (14.23 ± 4.76 weeks) versus IF (16.34 ± 7.81 weeks; MD = -2.11 weeks; p = 0.042). Reoperation rates were significantly lower with arthrodesis (13% vs 30.48%; p = 0.031).
conclusionsArthrodesis offers superior functional recovery, pain relief, faster return to ambulation, and fewer reoperations than IF in posttraumatic Lisfranc injuries. Surgical choice should be individualized - arthrodesis is recommended for severe instability requiring maximal stability, while IF may be appropriate for younger or athletic patients prioritizing joint mobility. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.