ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2025
Planning of distal femoral osteotomy - antegrade vs. retrograde miniaci method.
Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe antegrade planning method according to Miniaci was primarily developed for high tibial osteotomies but is also used by several surgeons for planning of distal femoral osteotomies (DFO) in daily clinical practice. Strecker adapted in 2006 the Miniaci method as a retrograde method for planning of DFO. It is not yet known whether there is a difference between the planning methods for correction angles and osteotomy wedge heights in DFO planning. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree knee surgeons independently performed DFO planning with the antegrade Miniaci method, the retrograde method and the semiautomated method with the software mediCAD
resultsThe retrograde method resulted in significantly higher correction angles (+ 1.42° ± 0.55°; p < 0.001) and osteotomy wedge heights (+ 1,36 ± 0.61 mm; p < 0.001) than the antegrade Miniaci methods. A linear regression analysis showed a significant relationship between the extent of coronal deformity and the difference in correction angles between the two methods (p < 0.001, R
conclusionPlanning a DFO with the antegrade Miniaci method results in lower correction angles and osteotomy wedge heights than with the retrograde method, which in turn exhibits comparable values to software-based method as gold standard, leading to the risk of undercorrection with the antegrade method. In order to reduce the risk of undercorrection in DFO, the retrograde method appears to be superior. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3 - diagnostic retrospective cohort study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40392304What 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.