ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2023
Low-Intensity Pulsed Ultrasonography Plus Arthroscopic Drilling Does Not Improve Bone Healing More Than Arthroscopic Drilling Alone in Pediatric Patients With Stable Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether adjuvant use of bone stimulation would improve the rate of healing in the operative management of stable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the knee in pediatric patients. Methods: This retrospective matched case-control study was performed at a single tertiary care pediatric hospital between January 2015 and September 2018. Patients who underwent antegrade drilling for stable femoral condyle OCD with greater than 2 years' follow-up were included. Preference was for all to receive postoperative bone stimulation; however, some were denied because of insurance coverage. This enabled us to create 2 matched groups of those who received postoperative bone stimulation and those who did not. Patients were matched on skeletal maturity, lesion location, sex, and age at surgery. The primary outcome measure was the rate of healing of the lesions determined by postoperative magnetic resonance imaging measurements at 3 months. Results: Fifty-five patients were identified who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twenty patients from the bone stimulator group (BSTIM) were matched to 20 patients from the no bone stimulator group (NBSTIM). Mean age for BSTIM at surgery was 13.2 years ± 2.0 (range, 10.9-16.7) and for NBSTIM at surgery 12.9 years ± 2.0 (range, 9.3-17.3). At 2 years, 36 patients (90%) in both groups went on to clinical healing without further interventions. In BSTIM, there was a mean decrease of 0.9 (±1.8) mm in lesion on coronal width and 12 patients (63%) had overall improved healing; in NBSTIM there was a mean decrease of 0.8 (±3.6) mm in coronal width and 14 patients (78%) had improved healing. No statistical differences in the rate of healing were found between the 2 groups ( Conclusion: In antegrade drilling of stable knee OCD lesions in pediatric and adolescent patients, adjuvant bone stimulator use did not appear to improve radiographic or clinical healing. Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective case-control study.
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.