ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2020
Comparative study of medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy using fixator-cum-distractor device or locking plate in medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis of knee.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes Following Medial Opening Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy in Patients With Medial Compartment Grade 4 Chondromalacia.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025Article
- Angle Stable Plate Fixation vs Hemicallotasis in Medial Opening Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy: A Comparative Study.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of our study was to evaluate the role of medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOWHTO) in medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee and compare two different fixation devices for stability, duration, outcome, and complications.
methodsFifty-seven patients (60 knees) of age < 60 yrs and either sex with medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee were divided into 2 groups. Twenty-four patients (25 knees) in Group I underwent MOWHTO using fixator-cum-distractor and 33 patients (35 knees) in Group II underwent MOWHTO using locking plate osteosynthesis. The results were assessed by VAS, KOOS and WOMAC score.
resultsMean age of the patients in Group I was 53.13 ± 5.20 years and 51.32 ± 6.91 years in Group II. Mean preoperative varus deviation was 11.97 ± 3.34° in Group I and 11.78 ± 3.05° in Group II which was corrected to 3.27 ± 1.75° and 3.56 ± 1.47° valgus respectively. All the patients achieved full weight bearing by 35th day postoperatively in Group I with the mean of 30.27 ± 2.71 days and 38th day in Group II with the mean of 30.32 ± 3.08. The VAS, KOOS, and WOMAC score improved significantly postoperatively in both the groups.
conclusionThe difference between the two methods of fixation was statistically insignificant. Fixator-cum-distractor is minimally invasive giving good control over the final limb alignment; however, it is cumbersome with less patient compliance and has complications like pin tract infection. Locking plate provides better fixation stability than fixator-cum-distractor even without bone grafting; however, it is an invasive procedure requiring more soft tissue exposure and precise amount of wedge removal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.