ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Development and radiographic evaluation of a normalised guide-pin orientation abacus for anterior closing-wedge tibial osteotomy: Comparison with fixed-ratio and osteotomy-depth methods.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 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: To develop a simplified mathematical model and abacus estimating anterior wedge resection height during slope-reducing tibial osteotomy from patient-specific guide-pin length and normalised guide-pin orientation, and to evaluate its accuracy under simulated radiographic conditions against fixed-ratio and osteotomy-depth methods. It was hypothesised that normalised guide-pin orientation would provide wedge-height estimates comparable to radiographic planning in both configurations. Methods: Two hundred fifty-nine calibrated strict lateral knee radiographs from patients undergoing ACL reconstruction were retrospectively analysed in a single-centre radiographic simulation study. Supratuberosity and infratuberosity slope-reducing osteotomies were simulated with a standardised 10° correction, recording guide-pin length, orientation and corresponding anterior wedge height. Three models were compared: a trigonometric model with normalised mean angles, a fixed-ratio model and the osteotomy-depth method. Accuracy (mean absolute error, 90th percentile error) was assessed in-sample against radiographic reference measurements and confirmed by leave-one-out and five-fold cross-validation. Results: Mean guide-pin orientation angles were 67.4° ± 6.0° (supratuberosity) and 110.6° ± 4.7° (infratuberosity). The normalised-angle model produced mean absolute errors of 0.45 ± 0.41 mm (95% CI, 0.40-0.50) and 0.88 ± 0.79 mm (95% CI, 0.78-0.98), with 90th percentile errors of 0.91 and 1.77 mm and Bland-Altman bias of -0.17 and -0.06 mm, lower than both comparator models. Estimation error was not significantly influenced by sex or baseline posterior tibial slope, though the cohort's imbalanced sex distribution (194 men, 65 women) limited power to detect smaller effects in women. Conclusion: Within this model-development cohort, a patient-specific abacus based on guide-pin length and normalised guide-pin orientation produced low approximation errors under simulated radiographic conditions, without intraoperative radiographic calibration or complex calculations. These findings are exploratory and reflect in-sample performance; independent and clinical validation, including prospective intraoperative testing, are required before the method can be considered accurate, reproducible or ready for intraoperative use. Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective radiographic simulation/model-development study without clinical outcomes.
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.