ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2024
Biomechanical comparison of reverse offset-L osteotomy and chevron osteotomy in cadaveric hallux valgus surgery.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biomechanical comparison of Mitchell versus Chevron osteotomy with the third generation minimally invasive screw fixation technique.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveChevron osteotomy offers near-excellent clinical results and adequate stability at lower shift percentages, among the techniques used to correct hallux valgus deformity. This cadaveric study aimed to compare the Chevron osteotomy with the reverse offset-L osteotomy, which may provide a greater surface area and a more stable geometry to withstand higher cantilever forces at higher shift percentages.
methodsMetatarsal bones obtained from 20 human cadavers with similar bone quality were divided into two groups: Chevron osteotomy was applied to the 1st group and reverse offset-L osteotomy was applied to the 2nd group. The load-to-failure, displacement in the y-axis, and total displacement values of both groups were compared statistically. Furthermore, bone densities were compared between the groups with computed tomography imaging.
resultsWhen outliers in both groups were excluded, a statistically significant difference was found in favor of reverse offset-L (143 ± 42 vs. 204 ± 51.2 N, p = 0.02) in terms of failure load. The groups were similar in terms of displacement on the y-axis and total displacement values. Bone densities were similar.
conclusionThe reverse offset-L osteotomy has been shown to withstand greater loads before failure compared to the standard Chevron osteotomy. This significant difference in load-to-failure may enable reverse offset-L to provide reliable stability in osteotomies performed in advanced HV cases requiring higher shifts.
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.