Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Orthop. Dec 18, 2021; 12(12): 1036-1044
Published online Dec 18, 2021. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i12.1036
Published online Dec 18, 2021. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i12.1036
No | Ref. | Joint arthrodesed | Number of joints | Follow up (mo) | Outcome |
1 | Segal et al[5], 2020 | 1st MTP joint | 30 | 36 | Mean postop AOFAS score: 80.5 |
2 | Patel et al[6], 2019 | 1st MTP joint | 54 | 12 | Mean MOXFQ improved from 46.4 to 18.4 |
3 | Singhal et al[7], 2018 | 1st MTP joint | 21 | 28 | Mean MOXFQ improved from 49.7 to 17.9 |
4 | Drampalos et al[8], 2017 | 1st MTP joint | 12 | 15 | Mean AOFAS score improved from 29.4 to 73.3 |
5 | Drampalos et al[9], 2016 | 1st MTP joint | 23 | 19 | Mean AOFAS score improved from 29 to 75.4 |
6 | Shymon et al[10], 2016 | Talonavicular | 12 | 12 | VAS pain level decreased from 7.3 to 2.1 |
7 | Parker et al[11], 2014 | Tibio talar joint | 10 cadaveric | Higher forces within the arthrodesis (3.95 kg vs 2.35 kg) in IOFIX | |
8 | Burchard et al[12], 2018 | 1st MTP joint | 9 synthetic | Lower load to failure and less stiffness in IOFIX | |
9 | Roth et al[13], 2014 | 1st MTP joint | 7 cadaveric | Lesser cycles to failure in IOFIX |
- Citation: Benjamin B, Ryan P, Chechelnitskaya Y, Bayam L, Syed T, Drampalos E. Intraosseous device for arthrodesis in foot and ankle surgery: Review of the literature and biomechanical properties. World J Orthop 2021; 12(12): 1036-1044
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v12/i12/1036.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v12.i12.1036