Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40612038›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025

Differences between bone age and chronological age in patients with open physes and anterior cruciate ligament injury using a Magnetic Resonance Imaging bone age assessment tool of the knee.

Alberto Grassi, Claudio Rossi, Emanuele Altovino, Luca Ambrosini, Federico Maria Adravanti, Amir Assaf, Kyle Borque, Stefano Zaffagnini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

8 authors.

Alberto GrassiII Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli Bologna Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4236-1798
Claudio RossiII Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli Bologna Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3808-9733
Emanuele AltovinoII Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli Bologna Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5480-6138
Luca AmbrosiniII Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli Bologna Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2811-6817
Federico Maria AdravantiII Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli Bologna Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5805-8617
Amir AssafII Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli Bologna Italy.
Kyle BorqueDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery Houston Methodist Hospital Houston Texas USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5543-2124
Stefano ZaffagniniII Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli Bologna Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2941-1407

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study examines the efficacy of the Pennock Bone Age Atlas, which utilizes knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in accurately assessing skeletal maturity in paediatric patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Specifically, it investigated the differences between chronological and bone ages in skeletally immature patients to inform clinical decision-making for ACL reconstruction. Methods: A total of 79 skeletally immature patients with ACL injuries, treated between February 2022 and June 2024, were included in this study. Bone age was assessed using the Pennock Atlas. The differences between chronological and bone ages were calculated, and the remaining growth potential was estimated. Statistical analyses were conducted to identify any significant discrepancies in growth expectations based on these measures. Results: On average, bone age closely matched chronological age. However, 25.3% of patients showed discrepancies greater than 1 year, particularly in the 12-14 age group. About 15% of patients who were expected to have no further growth according to chronological age had remaining growth potential when assessed by bone age, while 11% showed completed growth despite their chronological age suggesting otherwise. This discrepancy emphasizes the need to consider skeletal maturity rather than relying solely on chronological age in clinical decisions. Conclusion: In the setting of ACL injury in skeletally immature patients, the Pennock Bone Atlas was able to accurately detect differences between bone age and chronological age, identifying a mismatch of more than 1 year between the two ages in up to 25% of cases. This information can be used to guide surgeons in choosing different treatments optimized for the patient's growth potential. Level of Evidence: Level IV case series.

Indexed as

ACLphyseal sparingskeletal ageskeletally immature

Identifiers

PMID40612038
PMCPMC12221236

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.