Trial reportActa orthopaedica2024
Open versus arthroscopic fusion of the subtalar joint: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Acta orthopaedica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Arthroscopic subtalar arthrodesis using grafts grants higher union rates and faster time to union: systematic review and meta-analysis.EFORT open reviews · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeOur primary aim was to compare the early complication rate (< 6 weeks postoperatively) after open or arthroscopic fusion of the subtalar joint. Secondary outcomes included late complications (> 6 weeks postoperatively), function, pain, and patient satisfaction.
methodsIn this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients listed for subtalar joint fusion were included and randomized for open or arthroscopic fusion. Complications were assessed at scheduled visits at 2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Functional scores, pain scores, and patient satisfaction were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, and PROMS at baseline (preoperatively), 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The scores were compared over time between the groups using Fisher's exact test and linear mixed models.
results51 patients were included between 2013 and 2020, of whom 25 were allocated to open and 26 to arthroscopic fusion. 3 early complications (2 sural nerve lesions, 1 infection) occurred in the open fusion group (12%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3-32) and 3 (2 wound healing problems, 1 screw exchange) in the arthroscopic group (12%; CI 3-31). Late complications included screw removal (n = 5) in the open fusion group versus screw removal (n = 5), non-union (n = 2), bony prominence/calcification removal (n = 1), sural nerve lesion (n = 1), lesion of the calcaneal branch of the tibial nerve (n = 1), complex regional pain syndrome type II (n = 1), and secondary plantar fasciitis (n = 1) in the arthroscopic fusion group. No superiority of arthroscopic over open fusion was found regarding early (P = 1.0) and late complications (P = 0.2), function and pain scores, and patient satisfaction over 12 months Conclusion: Arthroscopic fusion did not result in fewer early complications compared with open fusion. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.