ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Is microfracture sufficient for high-tibial osteotomy, or should intra-articular hyaluronic acid and oral glucosamine-chondroitin be used as additional treatments?
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the effects of microfracture (MF) versus intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) + oral glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate (GC) in addition to MF in patients with osteoarthritic knees who underwent medial open wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOWHTO) after an average follow-up of five years.
methodsThe study was designed retrospectively and included patients who underwent MOWHTO due to gonarthrosis, the MF method performed on these patients, and HA + GC treatments applied in addition to MF. Three groups consisting of 79 patients were formed: only HTO (Group 1), HTO + MF (Group 2), and HTO + MF + HA + GC (Group 3). The groups were compared using knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and range of motion (ROM). The associations between the degree of correction and function and pain were evaluated. Additionally, the KOOS subparameters were compared between the groups.
resultsThere were significant improvements in the postoperative KOOS and VAS scores in all three groups (p < 0.05). However, the ROM did not improve in Group 1. There was no significant difference in the postoperative KOOS, VAS, or ROM values between Groups 2 and 3, but these values were significantly better in Groups 2 and 3 than in Group 1 (p < 0.05). When the degree of correction increased, there were no significant positive changes in the postoperative KOOS or VAS score in Group 1, unlike in the other two groups (p < 0.05). In corrections of ≥ 10°, while there was no significant difference in the postoperative KOOS or VAS score between Groups 2 and 3, these parameters significantly improved in these two groups compared to Group 1 (p < 0.05). Among the KOOS subparameters, pain and activities of daily living scores were greater in Groups 2 and 3 than in Group 1 (p < 0.05).
conclusionsIn MOWHTO, MF is a sufficient treatment method that improves the patient's clinical condition without requiring additional treatments such as HA and GC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study.
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.