ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Network meta-analysis of high tibial osteotomy combined with different bone defect filler materials for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to systematically review and analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes of high tibial osteotomy (HTO) combined with various bone defect filler materials for the treatment of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (MCKOA). In light of the increasing adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles, we further seek to refine treatment strategies for MCKOA by comparing the therapeutic effects of different filler materials.
methodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search of studies published from database inception to July 1, 2024, across PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus. Using a network meta-analysis framework, we systematically assessed clinical comparative studies involving two or more bone defect filler materials in patients undergoing medial open-wedge high tibial osteotomy. Evidence was synthesized through a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis. Methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
resultsAfter rigorous screening, 29 eligible trials were identified from 2755 references, including 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 19 non-randomized comparative trials (NCTs), involving a total of 1549 participants. These trials evaluated six intervention types: autografts, allografts, synthetic grafts, composite grafts, xenografts, and no grafts. Analyses based on outcomes such as clinical bone healing time, percentage of complete bone union, Lysholm knee score, infection, and delayed union, autogenous iliac bone grafting showed potential as a favorable option. However, considering correction of osteotomy defects and donor site morbidity, autogenous iliac bone grafting should be avoided. In contrast, synthetic grafts or allografts appeared more favorable when assessed using outcomes like WOMAC score, lateral cortical fracture, and donor site morbidity.
conclusionTaking into account postoperative prognosis and complication profiles in HTO patients, autogenous iliac bone grafting may demonstrates superior efficacy in treating MCKOA, though its associated risks warrant careful consideration. Synthetic grafts and allografts offer a more balanced risk-benefit profile and represent recommended alternatives. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, a meta-analysis of Level I RCTs and Level II-III non-randomized controlled trials.
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.