ReviewEFORT open reviews2024
Hip preservation surgery for borderline and frank dysplasia: an overview of systematic reviews.
Review in EFORT open reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-baseline virtual progression modeling of Crowe type I-III developmental dysplasia of the hip: a finite element study of stress-location migration.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- The lateral hip instability test: Diagnostic accuracy for lateral or posterolateral femoral head undercoverage.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
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
Purpose: To identify, synthesise, and critically appraise findings of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses on hip preservation surgeries for borderline and/or frank dysplasia with or without concomitant femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Methods: A search, following the PRISMA guidelines, was conducted using Medline and Embase on 19/04/2023. Findings extracted from eligible studies were tabulated and synthesised. Results: The search identified 477 references. Nineteen were eligible for data extraction: nine reported on arthroscopy, five reported on periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), one reported on shelf acetabuloplasty, and one reported on Chiari osteotomy, while two compared arthroscopy versus PAO, and one compared PAO versus rotational acetabular osteotomy (RAO) versus eccentric acetabular osteotomy (ERAO). The nomenclature and lateral centre edge angle (LCEA) thresholds to define hip dysplasia varied widely across included studies. All hip preservation surgeries provided good outcomes, with the Harris hip score (HHS) being the most commonly reported clinical score. Using the AMSTAR checklist for risk of bias, no systematic reviews were rated as high quality; ten were rated as moderate quality; six were rated as low quality; and three were rated as critically low quality. Conclusions: Most published systematic reviews on hip preservation surgery are of moderate or low quality, and there is high heterogeneity among them regarding outcomes reported, follow-up periods, and definitions of dysplasia. The authors recommend the following thresholds and nomenclature for dysplasia: LCEA < 20° for frank dysplasia, 20°-25° for borderline dysplasia, and >25° for no dysplasia. Although all hip preservation surgeries can provide good outcomes, it is challenging to conclude which surgery provides the best outcomes and to determine if treatment options are dependent on LCEA.
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.