Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25217316›Full record

Trial reportKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2016

Better clinical results after closed- compared to open-wedge high tibial osteotomy in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis and varus leg alignment.

N van Egmond, S van Grinsven, C J M van Loon, R D Gaasbeek, A van Kampen

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Surgical interventions for symptomatic mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Knee joint distraction compared with high tibial osteotomy: a randomized controlled trial.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017
    Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

N van EgmondDepartment of Orthopaedics, Radboud University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Nienkevanegmond@hotmail.com.
S van GrinsvenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rijnstate Hospital Arnhem, Wagnerlaan 55, 6800 TA, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
C J M van LoonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rijnstate Hospital Arnhem, Wagnerlaan 55, 6800 TA, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
R D GaasbeekDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Meander Medical Center, P.O. Box 1502, 3800 BM, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
A van KampenDepartment of Orthopaedics, Radboud University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeStudies comparing mid- or long-term outcomes of open- and closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy are limited. Here, the midterm survival rate and clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared for these two techniques. The study hypothesis, based on short-term follow-up, was that after midterm follow-up, the two techniques would not differ.

methodsA prospective follow-up study was conducted for a previously reported randomized controlled trial of an original 50 patients (25 open-wedge osteotomy and 25 closed-wedge osteotomy) with medial knee osteoarthritis and a varus leg alignment. We analyzed patients without knee arthroplasty (mean age 48.7 years, SD 8.0) for clinical and radiographic follow-up.

resultsFive patients in each group had undergone conversion to a total knee arthroplasty or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, leaving 19 patients for analysis in each group. At 7.9 years of follow-up (range 7-9 years), survival did not differ significantly between groups (open-wedge group 81.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 75.2-100], closed-wedge group 82.0% [95% CI 66.7-100]). At final follow-up, total Dutch Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis (WOMAC), Knee Society Score, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain did not differ between groups. However, the results were significantly better in the closed-wedge group for VAS satisfaction and WOMAC pain and stiffness compared to the open-wedge group. Radiographic evaluation did not differ between groups for any outcome at final follow-up.

conclusionAfter a mean follow-up of 7.9 years, patients undergoing a closed-wedge osteotomy had favorable clinical results compared to those who underwent an open-wedge osteotomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Indexed as

AdultBone MalalignmentFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneeOsteotomyProspective StudiesTibiaClosed-wedge high tibial osteotomyKneeOpen-wedge high tibial osteotomyOsteoarthritisRCT

Identifiers

PMID25217316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.