ArticleHip & pelvis2026
Acetabular Distraction versus Cup-Cage Construct in the Management of Chronic Pelvic Discontinuity: A Comparative Study.
Article in Hip & pelvis, 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
Purpose: The main aim of this study is to compare the functional and radiological outcomes of the acetabular distraction technique and the cup-cage construct technique in the management of chronic pelvic discontinuity. Materials and Methods: In this prospective interventional study, 36 patients with chronic pelvic discontinuity were initially split into two equal groups and underwent surgery utilizing either the acetabular distraction technique or the cup-cage construct technique. The patients were followed up for 2 years to assess the functional and radiological outcomes of the techniques. Six patients were lost during follow-up (two of them died, four discontinue follow-up). Results: The two groups did not differ significantly with regards to the clinical (Harris hip score) and radiological (stability of the construct, graft incorporation, and absence of loosening or migration) outcomes. Both the techniques displayed significant postsurgical improvements in both the Harris hip score and limb length discrepancy. Conclusion: Both acetabular distraction and the cup-cage construct techniques may be used to treat pelvic discontinuity without any significant difference in the clinical outcomes, as measured by Harris hip score, and in the radiological outcomes. Acetabular distraction appears to be more effective in treating discontinuity as a secondary outcome of neglected acetabular fracture.
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.