ReviewAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2026
Management trends and practices in ischial tuberosity avulsion fractures: a cross-sectional study among hip surgeons in the UK, surgical technique and literature review.
Review in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2026. 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.
- Ischial tuberosity avulsion fractures: limited evidence supporting displacement cut-offs for surgery.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIschial tuberosity avulsion fracture (ITAF) is a rare injury affecting predominantly adolescent athletes yet lacks standardised management protocols. This study aims to investigate the diverse management preferences among hip surgeons regarding ITAF and share our preferred surgical technique and management.
methodsIn a cross-sectional study, 237 British Hip Society members were surveyed regarding various aspects of ITAF management, including preferences for operative versus non-operative approaches, surgical techniques and postoperative rehabilitation regimens. Sixty-two surgeons responded, yielding a 26% response rate.
resultsThirty-six surgeons (58.1%) favoured conservative treatment, while 26 (41.9%) preferred surgery based on the degree of displacement. Among those advocating for surgery, 16 (61.5%) deemed displacement ≥20mm as significant, with 5 (19.2%) considering ≥15mm significant and another 19.2% regarding any displacement as significant. Prone theatre positioning was overwhelmingly preferred by 96.2%, with a majority (65.4%) favouring the transverse gluteal crease approach. Postoperatively, 11.5% preferred immediate full weight bearing, while 88.5% opted for six weeks of non-weight-bearing following surgery. Among conservative management advocates, 29% allowed unrestricted weight-bearing post-injury, 11.3% preferred weight-bearing until further review and 59.7% opted for partial weight-bearing for at least six weeks.
conclusionsThis study highlights the absence of a consensus on ITAF management. We present our preferred approach through a case analysis involving an ITAF patient treated at our department to enhance understanding of this rare injury and potentially improve management strategies.
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.