| Title |
Locking plate versus non-locking plate in open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00167-015-3850-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jae Hwi Han, Hyun Jung Kim, Jae Gwang Song, Jae Hyuk Yang, Ryuichi Nakamura, Daivesh Shah, Young Jee Park, Kyung Wook Nha |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to determine whether the locking plate or non-locking plate results in better opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) outcomes. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and KOREAMED register databases were searched for studies. The eligibility criteria for inclusion in the review were studies that compared the locking plate with the non-locking plate for OWHTO, and those that provided clear descriptions of surgical techniques and outcomes. The key outcomes of interest were union rate, correction loss angle, correction loss rate, and full weight-bearing starting point. The statistical software "RevMan" was used in statistical analysis. Five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Among their reported results, there were no differences in the incidence of union [risk ratio (RR) = 1.01, p = 0.34], non-locking plate was associated with lower incidence of correction maintenance (RR = 1.13, p = 0.0006) and greater angle of correction loss [mean difference (MD) = -2.06, p < 0.00001], and locking plate was associated with a significant improvement in Knee society score and function score (MD = 5.77, p < 0.0001; MD = 7.50, p = 0.0005). Locking plate provides better clinical outcomes and reduced correction loss rates and angles as compared to non-locking plate for fixation with OWHTO. IV. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 48% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 23 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,899,796
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#2,073
of 2,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,619
of 281,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#38
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.