Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39081670›Full record

ReviewJB & JS open access

Thompson Versus Judet Techniques for Quadricepsplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Outcomes and Complications.

Caroline T Gutowski, Kathryn Hedden, Parker Johnsen, John E Dibato, Christopher Rivera-Pintado, Kenneth Graf

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JB & JS open access. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Caroline T GutowskiCooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6060-9534
Kathryn HeddenCooper University Healthcare, Camden, New Jersey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8445-0408
Parker JohnsenCooper University Healthcare, Camden, New Jersey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1394-5594
John E DibatoCooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey.
Christopher Rivera-PintadoCooper University Healthcare, Camden, New Jersey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6675-6412
Kenneth GrafCooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, New Jersey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5491-1094

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Quadricepsplasty has been used for over half a century to improve range of motion (ROM) in knees with severe arthrofibrosis. Various surgical techniques for quadricepsplasty exist, including Judet and Thompson, as well as novel minimally invasive approaches. The goal of this review was to compare outcomes between quadricepsplasty techniques for knee contractures. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Available databases were queried for all articles on quadricepsplasty. Outcomes included postoperative ROM, outcome scores, and complication rates. Secondarily, we summarized rehabilitation protocols and descriptions of all modified and novel techniques. Results: Thirty-three articles comprising 797 patients were included in final analysis. Thirty-five percent of patients underwent Thompson quadricepsplasty, 36% underwent Judet, and 29% underwent other techniques. After Judet and Thompson quadricepsplasty, patients achieved a mean postoperative active flexion of 92.7° and 106.4°, respectively (p < 0.01). Complication rates after Judet and Thompson were 17% and 24%, respectively. Wound infection was the most frequently recorded complication after Judet, whereas extension lag predominated for Thompson. Conclusion: Both the Thompson and Judet quadricepsplasty techniques offer successful treatment options to restore functional knee ROM. Although the Thompson technique resulted in greater postoperative knee flexion compared with the Judet, the difference may be attributable to differences in preoperative flexion and time from injury to quadricepsplasty. Overall, the difference in flexion gained between the 2 techniques is comparable and clinically negligible. Level of Evidence: Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID39081670
PMCPMC11286254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.