ReviewArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2026
Comparing the clinical outcomes of arthroereisis and osteotomy in the treatment of paediatric patients with idiopathic flexible pes planus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBoth subtalar arthroereisis and osteotomies are well-recognised surgical reconstructive options for paediatric pes planus deformity. We compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of subtalar arthroereisis versus osteotomies in the surgical management of symptomatic idiopathic flexible pes planus in paediatric patients 2-18 years old. Specifically, we evaluated changes in key radiographic parameters and validated patient-reported outcome measures, as well as complications, to determine relative efficacy and safety.
methodsElectronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library) were searched from inception through August 23, 2024, following PRISMA guidelines. We reviewed studies involving patients aged 18 years or younger with idiopathic pes planus. The inclusion criteria encompassed all types of osteotomy procedures and subtalar arthroereisis, including both exosinotarsal (screw-type) and endosinotarsal (spacer-type) techniques. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to assess unweighted mean differences for radiographic angles and AOFAS scores.
resultsSixty studies (4,555 feet) were included: 46 arthroereisis (4,089 feet), 15 osteotomy (448 feet), and 1 combined (18 feet). Osteotomy demonstrated greater radiographic improvement in AP Meary's angle (MD - 12.7 degrees vs. - 9.8 degrees; p < .0001), calcaneal pitch (MD 11.1 degrees vs. 4.1 degrees; p < .0001), and Kite's angle (MD - 11.7 degrees vs. - 6.8 degrees; p < .0001). Arthroereisis achieved superior correction of lateral Meary's (MD - 11.7 degrees vs. - 10.1 degrees; p < .0001), lateral Kite's (MD - 7.1 degrees vs. - 4.2 degrees; p < .0001), and talonavicular coverage (MD - 15.6 degrees vs. - 12.7 degrees; p < .0001). Post-operative AOFAS improvements were similar (MD 29.2 vs. 26.4). Overall complication rates were 9.2% for arthroereisis (predominantly sinus tarsi pain) and 10.5% for osteotomy (primarily infections).
conclusionWhile osteotomy yields greater correction of calcaneal inclination and hindfoot valgus, subtalar arthroereisis provides superior restoration of the lateral longitudinal arch and forefoot adduction. Despite these radiographic differences, both techniques provide equivalent functional gains. Due to its minimally invasive nature and favorable safety profile, arthroereisis is a viable first-line option, while osteotomy remains essential for correcting severe structural calcaneal pathology.
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.