Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37074375›Full record

Trial reportInternational orthopaedics2023

Proximal tibia osteotomy with absorbable spacer combined with fibular osteotomy versus high tibial osteotomy for medial compartmental knee osteoarthritis.

Wei Chen, Ruipeng Zhang, Siming Jia, Yunwei Cui, Kuo Zhao, Tianrui Wang, Hongzhi Lv, Yanbin Zhu, Hongtao Tian, Bo Wang and 5 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Wei ChenDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Qiaoxi District, No. 139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Ruipeng ZhangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Qiaoxi District, No. 139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Siming JiaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Qiaoxi District, No. 139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Yunwei CuiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Qiaoxi District, No. 139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Kuo ZhaoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Qiaoxi District, No. 139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Tianrui WangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Qiaoxi District, No. 139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Hongzhi LvDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Qiaoxi District, No. 139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Yanbin ZhuDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Qiaoxi District, No. 139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Hongtao TianDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430022, Hubei, China.
Bo WangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Qiaoxi District, No. 139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China.
Jidong LiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Jingxing Xian Hospital, No. 20 Jianshe South Road, Jingxing, 050300, China.
Tonglin WangDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Lincheng People's Hospital, No. 86 Linquan Road, Lincheng, 054399, China.
Shaw-Ruey LyuInternational Health Promotion Center of the Knee Tzu-Chi Dalin General Hospital, Min-Shen Road, Dalin, Chiayi, Taiwan, 222.
Juan Wang *Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Qiaoxi District, No. 139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China. 84133719@qq.com.
Yingze Zhang *Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Qiaoxi District, No. 139 Ziqiang Road, Shijiazhuang, 050051, China. dryzzhang@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8042-6105
Hebei Medical University · CNQingdao University · CNBuddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital · TWUnion Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe study aimed to compare the perioperative complications, short-term clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic parameters of tibiofibular proximal osteotomy combined with absorbable spacer insertion (TPOASI) and open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) in a two year postoperative time period.

methodsA total of 160 patients with Kellgren-Lawrence classification grade 3 medial compartmental knee OA were randomized to receive either TPOASI (n = 82) or OWHTO (n = 78). The primary and secondary outcomes were measured preoperatively, postoperatively, and at each follow-up examination. The primary outcomes were the between-group change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Global score (WOMAC). Secondary measures included visual analog scale (VAS), radiographic parameters, American Knee Society Score (KSS), operation time, blood loss, length of incision, hospital stay, and relevant complications. Postoperative radiographic parameters, including the femorotibial angle (FTA), varus angle (VA), and joint line convergence angle (JLCA), were measured to evaluate the correction of varus deformity.

resultsNo significant differences were found in the baseline data between the two groups. Both methods improved functional status and pain postoperatively. For primary outcomes of both groups, statistical difference was observed in WOMAC scores at the 6-month follow-up (P < 0.001). For secondary outcomes, no statistical difference was observed between the groups during the 2-year follow-up (P > 0.05). For TPOASI vs. OWHTO, the mean hospital stay (6.6 ± 1.3 days vs. 7.8 ± 2.1 days) was shorter (P < 0.001), and both blood loss (70.56 ± 35.58 vs. 174.00 ± 66.33 mL) and complication rate (3.7% vs. 12.8%) were significantly lower (P < 0.005 for both).

conclusionsBoth approaches showed satisfactory functional outcomes and alleviated pain. However, TPOASI is a simple, feasible method with few complications, and it could be widely used.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, KneeHumansKnee JointOsteotomyPainRetrospective StudiesTibiaAbsorbable spacer insertionKnee osteoarthritisOpening wedge high tibial osteotomy

Identifiers

PMID37074375
OpenAlexW4366351832

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.