ArticleCartilage2026
Cutting to the Truth: Are We Measuring Osteotomy Parameters Correctly?
Article in Cartilage, 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
PurposeTraditional lower limb deformity analysis in pediatrics and adults centers on the anatomical center of the knee. However, in high tibial osteotomy (HTO) for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (KOA), the surgical goal is often valgus overcorrection toward a lateral weight-bearing point. This study quantified the effect of using a lateral weight-bearing point versus the center of the knee on lower-limb alignment parameters and assessed how these differences may influence surgical decision-making.MethodsA retrospective radiographic study was conducted in 20 patients with unicompartmental KOA who underwent HTO. Alignment was measured using 2 methods: the anatomical center of the knee and a 62.5% lateral weight-bearing point as the lateral weight-bearing reference point. Measured parameters included the mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), mechanical lateral distal tibial angle (mLDTA), and mechanical hip-knee-ankle angle (mHKAA). Methods were compared using paired t tests.ResultsUsing a 62.5% lateral weight-bearing point altered all alignment parameters. Compared with knee-centered measurements, mLDFA increased by 1.52° (more varus), mMPTA decreased by 1.84° (more varus), and mLDTA decreased by 1.85° (more valgus) (all
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.