Skip to main content
. 2017 Jul 4;18:286. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1645-7

Table 2.

The characteristics of the included studies (b)

Study (year) Main functional evaluation Mean scores
SBG VS SG
Implant removal
SBG VS SG
Implant failure
SBG VS SG
Malreduction
SBG VS SG
Complications
SBG VS SG
Routine screw removal (yes or no)
Kocadal et al. 2016 [4] AOFAS 88.4 /86.1 1/10 0/1 NR 2 (1 low-grade infection and implant irritation)/1 reflex sympathetic dystrophy No
Kim et al. 2016 [2] AOFAS 88.1/86.6 NR 0/5 NR NR NR
Seyhan 2015 [17] AOFAS 93.73/93.35 2/17 0/0 0/0 6 (2 Implant discomfort and 4 soft tissue irritation )/2 Implant discomfort Yes
Kortekangas 2015 [8] Olerud–Molander score 82/84 1/3 0/16(broken in three patients and loosened in 13 patients) 1/3 1 post-operative infection/3 local irritation No
Laflamme 2015 [9] Olerud–Molander score 93.3/ 87.7 2/11 0/13 0/4 3(two superficial infection and one partial syndesmosis ossification)/12(1 partial syndesmosis ossification and 11 discomfort) No
Naqvi 2012 [11, 25] AOFAS 89.56/86.52 NR NR 0/5 NR Yes
Cottom 2009 [12] Modified AOFAS (a maximum of 63 possible points) 50.64/53.45 0/17 0/12 (screw loosening in 5 patients and 7 cases of screw breakage) NR NR No
Coetzee 2009 [15] AOFAS 94/88 1/1 0/1 NR 1 superficial infection/0 No
Thornes 2005 [18] AOFAS 93/ 83 0/12 NR NR No major complications or wound infections No

AOFAS American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle score, SBG suture-button group, SG screw group, NR no report