Trial reportInternational orthopaedics2022
Is modified reverse step-cut osteotomy better than Yun's reverse V osteotomy in paediatric cubitus varus deformity correction? A prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in International orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Three-dimensional correction of cubitus varus deformity using patient-specific 3D-printed osteotomy guides.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Association of Clinical Findings With Complications in the Cubitus Varus Deformity After Supracondylar Fracture.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Article
- Step-cut osteotomy for cubitus varus deformity with application of patient-specific instrument in children: a preliminary report.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Three-dimensional corrective osteotomy for cubitus varus deformity using patient-matched instruments.JSES international · 2024Review
- [Comparative study of external fixator combined with Kirschner wire fixation and Kirschner wires fixation in treatment of cubitus varus deformity in children].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Article
- [Computer-simulated osteotomy based on health-side combined with guide plate technique in treatment of cubitus varus deformity in adolescents].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023Article
- Guided Growth for the Treatment of Cubitus Varus in Children: Medium- to Long-Term Results.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious corrective osteotomy techniques have been described in the literature for correcting paediatric cubitus varus. But we are still in search of the perfect technique that gives maximum possible deformity correction and cosmetic appearance that satisfies parents with minimal complications. We compared the outcomes of two technically sound osteotomy techniques having minimal postoperative lateral condyle prominence described in the literature. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is modified reverse step-cut osteotomy (MRSO) better in terms of clinical, radiological, and cosmetic outcomes than Yun's reverse V osteotomy (RVO) in pediatric cubitus varus deformity correction?
methodsIn total, 20 children with unilateral cubitus varus resulting from malunited supracondylar humerus fractures were included. Randomization was done by computer-generated random slips. A total of ten cases each were operated by MRSO and RVO techniques, respectively. Clinical, radiological, and cosmetic appearance assessments were done at the final two year follow-up and compared between the two groups.
resultsThe mean age of children in the MRSO and RVO groups is 9.9 years (3-16) and 8.6 years (3-16), respectively. The mean pre-operative carrying angle in the deformed elbow of MRSO and RVO group was - 20.5° and - 19.5°, respectively, and the mean pos-toperative carrying angle in the corrected elbow of MRSO and RVO group was + 6.8° and + 6.5°, respectively. Regarding the lateral prominence index (LPI), a positive correlation was noted between pre-operative and post-operative periods with a value of 0.855 and 0.844 (p value: 0.001 and 0.03, respectively) in both MRSO and RVO groups, respectively. However, the change was statistically not significant when compared between the two groups (p = 0.63). There was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) when the clinical, radiological, and cosmetic outcomes were compared between the groups at final follow-up.
conclusionThe surgeon can choose either one of these techniques based on their expertise since the results of both the techniques are comparable in terms of clinical, radiological, and cosmetic outcomes.
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.