Minimally invasive surgical treatment for chronic ankle instability: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the evidence-based support for the treatment for chronic ankle instability (CAI) using minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques. METHODS: A systematic comprehensive review of the literature was performed on 4 September 2015 using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane databases and Web of Science along with the two search concepts: lateral ligament of the ankle (patients) and minimally invasive surgical procedure (intervention). Articles of clinical study on MIS for CAI were included in this review and classified into four MIS categories (arthroscopic repair, non-arthroscopic minimally invasive repair, arthroscopic reconstruction and non-arthroscopic minimally invasive reconstruction) based on the adopted surgical procedure. Included articles were reviewed and assigned a classification according to the research method quality of evidence (Level I-V evidence). Analysis of these studies was then conducted to provide a grade of recommendation for each MIS category. RESULTS: The systematic literature review generated 430 articles, and 33 articles met our inclusion criteria. The highest recommendation was Grade C (poor-quality evidence) to support the use of the arthroscopic repair, arthroscopic reconstruction and non-arthroscopic minimally invasive reconstruction. Insufficient evidence was currently available to make any recommendation (Grade I) for non-arthroscopic minimally invasive repair category. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent increases in publications on MIS for the treatment for CAI, there was currently poor quality of evidence that was insufficient to allow a high grade of recommendation to support the use of the MIS. This paper should stimulate those surgeons performing higher quality studies in the form of prospective and preferably randomized comparative studies that will be necessary to allow better recommendations for the treatment for CAI with MIS. The present study showed thorough evidence-based recommendation for the clinical use of the MIS based on the comprehensive review of the literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Level IV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".