ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026
A simple planning tool for tibial slope osteotomy-Osteotomy depth is a precise parameter to determine wedge height.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the planning precision of three wedge height planning methods relative to angular-based reference planning for infratubercle anterior closing wedge high tibial osteotomy (ACW-HTO).
methodsLateral knee radiographs of patients with posterior tibial slope (PTS) ≥ 13° were retrospectively reviewed. Infratubercle ACW-HTO was planned targeting a PTS of 5°. Angle-based planning served as the reference. Three methods were evaluated: wedge height calculated from osteotomy depth and correction angle (osteotomy depth method), a fixed ratio of 1.2 mm per degree of correction (ratio 1), and 1.67 mm per degree (ratio 2). Correction error was defined as the difference in wedge heights between each method. Planning precision was assessed using a ±1° correction error threshold. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was assessed.
resultsForty-six lateral knee radiographs of 46 patients (mean age 30 ± 11 years; 44% female) were included. Mean PTS was 15° ± 2° (range: 13-19°), requiring a mean correction of 10° ± 2° (range: 8-14°). Wedge heights differed significantly across planning methods (p < 0.001). Compared to the reference, ratio 1 underestimated wedge height by -1 ± 2 mm (range: -4 to 3 mm; p = 0.024) and ratio 2 overestimated by 4 ± 2 mm (range: 1-8 mm; p = 0.005). The osteotomy depth method achieved a correction error within ±1° in 83% of cases (38/46), ratio 1 (50%, 23/46; p = 0.048) and ratio 2 (9%, 6/46; p < 0.001). Interrater ICC was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.92) for PTS, 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83-0.95) for osteotomy depth and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.80-0.94) for wedge height.
conclusionFixed wedge height ratios resulted in a correction error greater than ±1° relative to the angular-based method in up to 91% of infratubercle ACW-HTOs. Wedge height calculated from osteotomy depth and correction angle provides superior planning precision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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.