Isolated Medial Subtalar Joint Dislocation during Sports Activities: A Systematic Review of the Literature with Individual Participant Data Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In athletes, one of the most common injuries is a sprained ankle. If the energy of the trauma is particularly high, this type of injury can lead to an isolated medial dislocation of the subtalar joint (STJ), a rare condition poorly described in the literature. The aim of this study was to verify if a reliable conservative treatment and a specific physiotherapy rehabilitation protocol in isolated medial dislocation of the STJ in athletes is described in the literature. A systematic review of the published literature of the last 11 years was performed by applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using three databases: Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The keywords used were “(subtalar OR talocalcaneal) AND dislocation”. We considered only studies that included professional or amateur athletes (athletic patients). We used the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scale, range of motion (ROM) of the subtalar and ankle joint, subtalar and talonavicular joint osteoarthritis, and patient feedback to evaluate their outcomes. A total of 12 studies were included in our review, with a total of 26 athletic patients. Sixteen of them had good results with the correlation between the duration of immobilisation and the outcomes. Nevertheless, due to the small number of patients included in the analysed studies on this subject in the literature, there is not yet a univocal clinical protocol to treat the isolated medial subtalar joint dislocation (STJD) warranting further research in the field.
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 | 0.028 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".