Skip to main content

Table 2 Study results

From: Patellar dislocation: cylinder cast, splint or brace? An evidence-based review of the literature

 

Conservative treatment

Comparison

p-value

Study, year

Method (n)

Redislocation n(%)

Method (n)

Redislocation n(%)

 

Apostolovic, 2011

Not specified (23)

1 (4)

Surgery (14)

2 (14)

Ns

Bitar, 2012

Brace (20)

7 (35)

Surgery (210)

0 (0)

Nm

Buchner, 2005

Brace (63)

17 (27)

Surgery (37)

10 (27)

Ns

Camanho, 2009

Splint (16)

8 (50)

Surgery (17)

0 (0)

Nm

Cash, 1988

Group 1

 

Splint (54)

23 (43)

Surgery (15)

2 (13)

Nm

 

Group 2

 

Splint (20)

4 (20)

Surgery (14)

1 (7)

Nm

Christiansen, 2008

Brace (35)

7 (20)

Surgery (42)

7 (17)

Ns

Cofield, 1977

Not specified (35)

11 (31)

Surgery (13)

0 (0)

Nm

Hawkins, 1986

Not specified (20)

3 (15)

Surgery (7)

0 (0)

Nm

Hing # , 2012

Not specified (157)

53 (34)

Surgery 182

47 (37)

0.26

Mäenpää, 1997

Cylinder cast (60)

23 (38)

Splint (17) Brace (23)

8 (53) 13 (48)

Ns

Palmu*, 2008

Brace (28)

15 (54)

Surgery (36)

18 (50)

Ns

Rood, 2012

Cast (9)

0 (0)

Tape (9)

0 (0)

Nm

Sillanpää, 2008

Brace (35)

8 (23)

Surgery (26)

5 (19)

0.84

Sillanpää, 2009

Brace (21)

6 (29)

Surgery (17)

0 (0)

0.02

Sillanpää, 2011

Brace restricted ROM (13)

3 (23)

Brace free ROM (13)

5 (38)

Ns

  1. #Cochrane Review.
  2. *Children and adolescents; Nm: not mentioned; Ns: not significant; ROM: range of motion.
  3. Group 1: congenital abnormality extensor mechanism opposite knee.
  4. Group 2: patients with normal opposite knee on examination.