
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script> Copyright policy )
 Copyright policy )pmid: 4971761
Strong personal opinion, previous training, and favorable past experience with one particular technique dictate any given surgeon's choice of procedure for ankle arthrodesis. But are these criteria valid for the selection of one technique over another? For information on this point, critical evaluation of the several surgical techniques used in a large series of such cases is attempted in this paper. Included in the evaluation are such matters as type of fixation, time required for clinical union, and end results. Materials and Methods This study concerns 132 patients who underwent arthrodesis of the ankle (140 surgical procedures) at the Mayo Clinic in the years 1956 through 1963. Included were those patients with tibiotalar fusion only, those with tibiotalar and talocalcaneal fusion, those with tibiotalar fusion combined with triple arthrodesis (pantalar fusion), and those with partial or complete loss of the talus and subsequent arthrodesis of the tibia to the os
Adult, Male, Postoperative Care, Bone Transplantation, Adolescent, Arthrodesis, Middle Aged, Amputation, Surgical, Pseudarthrosis, Postoperative Complications, Fractures, Ununited, Humans, Surgical Wound Infection, Female, Ankle Injuries, Ankle, Child, Aged
Adult, Male, Postoperative Care, Bone Transplantation, Adolescent, Arthrodesis, Middle Aged, Amputation, Surgical, Pseudarthrosis, Postoperative Complications, Fractures, Ununited, Humans, Surgical Wound Infection, Female, Ankle Injuries, Ankle, Child, Aged
| citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 94 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | 
