No Differences in Clinical Outcomes of Suture Tape Augmented Repair Versus Broström Repair Surgery for Chronic Lateral Ankle Instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suture tape (ST) augmented repair, an alternative to traditional Broström repair (BR), may protect the repaired anterior talofibular ligament during ligament healing. No systematic review of cohort studies has been conducted to compare traditional BR with ST-augmented repair for chronic lateral ankle instability. PURPOSE: To review the current evidence in the literature to ascertain whether ST-augmented repair is superior to traditional BR in managing chronic lateral ankle instability. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify relevant articles published in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The search included cohort studies comparing the efficacy of BR and ST-augmented repair procedures in terms of incidence of instability recurrence, functional scores, talar tilt angle (TTA), anterior talar translation (ATT), and complication rate. Methodological quality was assessed using the Jadad scale for randomized studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies. RESULTS: A total of 4 clinical trials with 254 patients were included. No significant differences were detected between BR and ST-augmented repair procedures in terms of incidence of recurrent instability, American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society score, Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure, TTA, ATT, or complication rate. The ST group appeared to have a shorter operation time compared with the BR group. CONCLUSION: No significant differences were found between ST-augmented repair and BR surgery regarding incidence of recurrent instability, functional outcome scores, or complication rates. Although technically challenging, the ST-augmented repair procedure appears to be a safe and fast option.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".