Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39534655›Full record

ReviewJB & JS open access

Radiographic Assessment of Bone Union in Proximal Tibia and Distal Femur Osteotomies: A Systematic Review.

Eva A Bax, Netanja I Harlianto, Roel J H Custers, Nienke van Egmond, Wouter Foppen, Moyo C Kruyt

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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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.

Eva A BaxDepartment of Orthopaedic surgery, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3892-6987
Netanja I HarliantoDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8196-3949
Roel J H CustersDepartment of Orthopaedic surgery, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5253-2883
Nienke van EgmondDepartment of Orthopaedic surgery, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1294-8408
Wouter FoppenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4970-8555
Moyo C KruytDepartment of Orthopaedic surgery, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5983-5251

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Osteotomies around the knee are a well-established treatment option for early and moderate unicompartmental osteoarthritis combined with a lower extremity malalignment. Moreover, osteotomies are often combined with cartilage treatment. Current image-based bone union assessments lack an accepted definition despite widespread use in research and clinical settings. The aim of this systematic review was to identify definitions and classification systems for bone union on radiographs after a proximal tibia or distal femur osteotomy. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase database, applying specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full-texts. The modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool were used. Data extraction included study characteristics, imaging modality, bone union definition, classification systems, assessment of gap fillers, use of modifiers, and osteotomy type. Results: Of the 1,180 screened titles and abstracts, 105 studies were included, with the majority (69 studies [65.7%]) using a retrospective design. Fifty-five studies (52.4%) defined bone union based on one or more criteria, while 50 studies (47.6%) used a classification system. There were 13 different criteria for bone union and 9 different classification systems. Interestingly, none of the classification systems incorporated negative criteria, such as hardware failure. Notably, 137 studies (49.1%) described bone union as either a primary or secondary outcome but do not describe a system for assessing bone union. Conclusion: This systematic review highlights the lack of consensus in the literature in defining bone union after a proximal tibia or distal femur osteotomy, revealing many criteria and different classifications. None of the classification systems were applicable to osteotomies with and without gap filler. This systematic review shows the need for a straightforward, reproducible, and accurate method to assess bone union after a proximal tibia or distal femur osteotomy. Level of Evidence: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Identifiers

PMID39534655
PMCPMC11557090

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.