A Multicenter Randomized Trial Comparing Antiglide and Lateral Plate Fixation in Ankle Fractures
Open the official record
This page only displays public information reproduced from the official ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT00718302. It adds no medical advice, opinions, or eligibility judgments. The official record remains the source of truth for eligibility criteria, enrollment, and contact information.
All trial information on this site comes from the official ClinicalTrials.gov public API (clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2), run by the U.S. National Library of Medicine. We only display that public information; we do not add opinions, endorsements, or any other intent. Always review the official ClinicalTrials.gov record for the latest information.
Official title
Ankle Fracture Plating: A Multicenter Randomized Trial Comparing Lateral and Antiglide Plating in Displaced Lateral Malleolus Fractures
Brief summary
Reproduced verbatim from the official ClinicalTrials.gov record. Not medical advice.
The role of operative fixation of unstable, displaced lateral malleolus fractures is well-established (Mayer, Mak, and Yablon). However, the optimal type of fixation remains the subject of debate. Lag screw fixation alone is only appropriate for long oblique fractures in younger patients (Tornetta). For all other patients, the choices for fibular stabilization most commonly involve the use of plates and screws which can be placed on either the lateral or posterior side of the bone, with or without lag screws. Lateral plating remains the most popular option, but since the description of posterior plating in 1982 (Brunner), reports in the literature have demonstrated some advantages of posterior over lateral plating (Ostrum, Treadwell, Winkler, and Wissing) . These advantages include less dissection, less palpable hardware, and decreased likelihood of intra-articular screw placement. However, there is only a single retrospective study in the published literature directly comparing these two methods (Lamontagne).
Study identification
- NCT ID
- NCT00718302
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Not applicable
- Enrollment
- 249 participants
Conditions and interventions
Conditions
Eligibility (public fields only)
- Age range
- 18 Years to 85 Years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Healthy volunteers not accepted
This page does not interpret eligibility. Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are on the official ClinicalTrials.gov record.
Study timeline
- Start date
- Jun 2008 (Type not available)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2012 (Actual)
- Completion
- Dec 2012 (Actual)
- Last update posted
- Mar 29, 2017
2008 – 2012
United States locations
- U.S. sites
- 9
- U.S. states
- 9
- U.S. cities
- 9
| Facility | City | State | ZIP | Site status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indiana University | Indianapolis | Indiana | 46202 | — |
| Boston Medical Center | Boston | Massachusetts | 02118 | — |
| Orthopaedic Associates of Michigan | Grand Rapids | Michigan | 49503 | — |
| Hennepin County Medical Center | Minneapolis | Minnesota | 55415 | — |
| Barnes-Jewish Hospital | St Louis | Missouri | 63110 | — |
| New York Hospital for Joint Diseases | New York | New York | 10003 | — |
| Ohio State University Medical Center | Columbus | Ohio | 43210 | — |
| University of Oklahoma/ Health Science | Oklahoma City | Oklahoma | 73190 | — |
| Orthopaedic Specialty Associates Fort Worth | Fort Worth | Texas | 76104 | — |
Site contact phone numbers, emails, and investigator names are intentionally not displayed here. Open the official ClinicalTrials.gov record for site contact information.
Non-U.S. locations
This page focuses on the U.S. directory. The official record also lists 1 non-U.S. site.
About this trial record page
- What this page shows
- Public field values for ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT00718302, including study identification, conditions, interventions, eligibility (age, sex, healthy volunteer), timeline, and U.S. site list.
- What this page does not do
- No medical advice, eligibility judgments, treatment recommendations, study quality scoring, or AI-generated medical summaries. No site contact phone numbers, emails, or investigator names.
- Where the data comes from
- Sourced from the official ClinicalTrials.gov public API. The official record is the source of truth.
- Last refresh
- Last update posted Mar 29, 2017 · Synced Nov 14, 2026
Related: full search, browse by condition, browse by drug or therapy, browse by sponsor, browse by U.S. city.