Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41440965›Full record

ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2025

Management Strategies for Failed Pilon Fractures: A Personalized Approach to Revision Reconstruction.

Lauren Luther, Richard S Moore III, Sriranjani Darbha, Bethany Gallagher, Daniel J Stinner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lauren LutherDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1215 21st Ave. South, Suite 4200, MCE, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
Richard S Moore IIIDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1215 21st Ave. South, Suite 4200, MCE, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-8549-8300
Sriranjani DarbhaTexas A&M College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7643-5663
Bethany GallagherDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1215 21st Ave. South, Suite 4200, MCE, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
Daniel J StinnerDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1215 21st Ave. South, Suite 4200, MCE, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite advances in staged protocols and fixation techniques, treatment of pilon fractures remains a significant challenge in orthopedic trauma, with up to 21% of patients requiring revision surgery. Management of a pilon fracture that has failed initial treatment involves navigating a myriad of complicating variables, including infection, bone loss, malalignment, and nonunion. Although no single surgical approach can be aptly applied to the broad range of pathology and severity spanned by these patients, this narrative review provides a systematic framework for developing a revision pilon reconstruction plan. We present a protocol for pre-operative assessment and review current techniques for infection eradication, bone defect management, deformity correction, and joint-preserving versus joint-sparing surgery. These fundamental strategies form the foundation of a successful salvage plan and can be personalized to address specific fracture morphology, host factors, and goals of care.

Indexed as

bone defect reconstructionfracture related infectionlimb salvagemalunionnonunionpersonalized medicinepilonpost-traumatic arthritisrevision surgerytibiotalar arthritistibiotalar arthrodesistotal ankle arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID41440965
PMCPMC12733445

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.