Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38992006›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Relevance of instrumented gait analysis in the prediction of the rebound phenomenon after guided growth intervention.

Felix Stief, Jana Holder, Sebastian Braun, Marco Brenneis, Stefan van Drongelen, S Kimberly Byrnes, Frank Layher, Chakravarthy U Dussa, Andrea Meurer, Harald Böhm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Felix StiefDepartment of Trauma Surgery and Orthopedics, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Marienburgstraße 2, 60528, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. stief@med.uni-frankfurt.de.ORCID 0000-0001-7088-3927
Jana HolderDepartment of Trauma Surgery and Orthopedics, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Marienburgstraße 2, 60528, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Sebastian BraunDepartment of Trauma Surgery and Orthopedics, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Marienburgstraße 2, 60528, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Marco BrenneisDepartment of Trauma Surgery and Orthopedics, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Marienburgstraße 2, 60528, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Stefan van DrongelenDepartment of Trauma Surgery and Orthopedics, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Marienburgstraße 2, 60528, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
S Kimberly ByrnesOrthopaedic Children's Hospital, Bernauer Straße 18, 83229, Aschau I. Chiemgau, Germany.
Frank LayherOrthopedic Department of the Waldkliniken Eisenberg, Orthopaedic Professorship of the University Hospital Jena, Klosterlausnitzer Straße 81, 07607, Eisenberg, Germany.
Chakravarthy U DussaOrthopaedic Children's Hospital, Bernauer Straße 18, 83229, Aschau I. Chiemgau, Germany.
Andrea MeurerDepartment of Trauma Surgery and Orthopedics, University Hospital, Goethe University Frankfurt, Marienburgstraße 2, 60528, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Harald BöhmOrthopaedic Children's Hospital, Bernauer Straße 18, 83229, Aschau I. Chiemgau, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predictors of rebound after correction of coronal plane deformities using temporary hemiepiphysiodesis (TH) are not well defined. The following research questions were tested: (1) Is the dynamic knee joint load useful to improve rebound prediction accuracy? (2) Does a large initial deformity play a critical role in rebound development? (3) Are BMI and a young age risk factors for rebound? Fifty children and adolescents with idiopathic knee valgus malalignment were included. A deviation of the mechanical femorotibial angle (MFA) of ≥ 3° into valgus between explantation and the one-year follow-up period was chosen to classify a rebound. A rebound was detected in 22 of the 50 patients (44%). Two predictors of rebound were identified: 1. reduced peak lateral knee joint contact force in the first half of the stance phase at the time of explantation (72.7% prediction); 2. minor initial deformity according to the MFA (70.5% prediction). The best prediction (75%) was obtained by including both parameters in the binary logistic regression method. A TH should not be advised in patients with a minor initial deformity of the leg axis. Dynamic knee joint loading using gait analysis and musculoskeletal modeling can be used to determine the optimum time to remove the plates.

Indexed as

Gait AnalysisKnee JointAdolescentBiomechanical PhenomenaChildFemaleGaitHumansMaleDynamic knee joint loadingGait analysisGenu valgumLeg malalignmentReboundTemporary hemiepiphysiodesis

Identifiers

PMID38992006
PMCPMC11239906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.