SynthesisEFORT open reviews2026
Non-reconstructive/salvage hip surgery in cerebral palsy: a systematic review.
Synthesis in EFORT open reviews, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Hip displacement is common in patients with cerebral palsy, carrying high morbidity without surgical intervention (pain, seating tolerance, perineal hygiene, and care). Operative techniques commonly used for non-reconstructive/salvage hip surgery are proximal femoral resection (PFR), valgus osteotomy (VO), and arthrodesis. There is limited literature comparing the outcomes between these operations. The main aim of this study is to provide an up-to-date comparison to guide surgical decision-making. Methods: This study was registered with PROSPERO (registration no.: CRD42022364078). A literature search was conducted using Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. English publications were included with no date restriction, including prospective, retrospective, and comparative studies. Data were extracted, including, but not limited to, pain improvement, increased sitting tolerance, seating time, parent and caregiver satisfaction, range of movement (ROM), heterotopic ossification (HO) rate, and ease of hygiene. Results: Forty-two studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria, totalling 1,261 hips in 1,103 patients. The pain relief was comparable between PFR and VO (95 vs 100%), with PFR having a higher patient/carer satisfaction rate (100 vs 80%) and much higher rates of heterotopic ossification (52 vs 13%). PFR provided a more favourable ROM. Arthrodesis had a higher rate of secondary surgery (24%) than PFR (16%) and VO (10%). Conclusion: This systematic review found that PFR has a higher patient/carer satisfaction rate and ROM with comparable pain relief to VO and a higher rate of HO. More research is needed to understand the clinical impact of HO. Arthrodesis was less commonly performed.
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.