SynthesisBMC surgery2025
Meta-analysis of the efficacy of proximal fibular osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the treatment of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis in Chinese patients.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2025. 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.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study comprehensively and methodically assessed the effectiveness of proximal fibular osteotomy (PFO) compared to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) as treatment for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (KOA) to offer direction and evidence to support clinical surgical decision-making.
methodsLiterature screening was strictly conducted according to the inclusion criteria, and reasonable outcome indicators were selected from the included studies. The PubMed, Web of Science, Wanfang Data, CQVIP, and CNKI databases were searched using a predefined search strategy. Quality assessment was stratified by study design: the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-RCTs. After extracting relevant data from the included studies, a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.
resultsThirteen studies involving 698 patients were included, with 355 and 343 patients in the PFO and UKA groups, respectively. The meta-analysis revealed that the PFO group had a shorter surgical duration, less intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and lower hospitalization costs than the UKA group. Nevertheless, no statistically significant differences in the postoperative visual analog scale scores (VAS), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) scores, knee range of motion (ROM), Knee Society Score (KSS), femorotibial angle, and incidence of postoperative complications were observed between the PFO and UKA groups.
conclusionsPFO and UKA provide comparable short-term functional outcomes for medial compartment KOA, with PFO offering advantages in surgical efficiency and cost. However, given the high heterogeneity and limited long-term data, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further high-quality studies are needed to confirm the durability and broader applicability of PFO.
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.