ArticleEuropean journal of translational myology2024
A randomized trial on transphyseal vs. physeal-sparing reconstruction in skeletally immature patients: functional outcomes and safety considerations.
Article in European journal of translational myology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) in Skeletally Immature Patients (SIP) poses challenges due to anatomical and developmental factors. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the Functional Recovery (FR) of pediatric patients undergoing ACL Reconstruction (ACLR), comparing Transphyseal Reconstruction (TPR) and physeal-sparing reconstruction (PSR). Forty-three young athletes (mean age 14.1 ± 2.3 years), including 29 boys and 14 girls, were randomized to TPR (n=23) or PSR (n=20). FR was assessed by using the Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee (Pedi-IKDC) questionnaire at baseline, 8 months, and 12 months post-surgery. At the 12-month follow-up, the TPR group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in Pedi-IKDC scores, with a 66.95% increase compared to 56.73% in the PSR group, reflecting notable differences in knee function between the groups at both 8 and 12 months (p < 0.001). Additionally, 80% of participants in the TPR group returned to sports, with 56% resuming limited activities, while the PSR group exhibited a slower recovery trajectory. These preliminary findings indicate that TPR provides superior FR and a faster return to sports compared to PSR, underscoring the importance of tailored rehabilitation protocols and long-term follow-up to optimize outcomes in SIP.
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.