Table 3 Study characteristics

No peroneal nerve release – with soft tissue release

 Greenberg et al. 2020

USA

Retr

95 (104)

–

73 ± 8

n/a

16.2 ± 5.6

5.4 ± 2.8

3.0 ± 6.5

3 (2.9%)

1) ITB subperiosteal (100%)

2) PLC transverse (n/a) 3) POP transverse (n/a)

1.8 ± 1.3

17/24

 Li et al. 2020

China

Pros

30 (35)

28 (93)

64.8 ± 8

30 (100%)

20.39 ± 7.79

7.0 ± 2.3

6.4 ± 9.0

1 (2.9%)

1) ITB pie-crusting (100%) 2) LCL transverse (100%) 3) POP transverse (n/a) 4) PLC (n/a)

3.9 ± 2.4

10/16

 Ren et al. 2020

China

Retr

58 (61)

47 (81)

65 ± 8

49 (84%)

30.6 ± 6.3

7.3 ± 2.2

0 ± 0

4 (6.6%)

1) ITB (100%) 2) LCL transverse (100%) 3) POP transverse (3.2%)

10.5 ± 2.4

10/16

 Cheng et al. 2020

China

Retr

56 (56)

31 (55)

62 ± 3.7

22 (39%)

21.4 ± 5.4

2.6 ± n/a

n/a

0 (0%)

1) ITB subperiosteal (100%) 2) LCL pie-crusting (8.9%) 3) PCL pie-crusting (8.9%)

1 ± 0

10/16

 Matar et al. 2019

UK

Retr

104 (110)

87 (84)

68.7 ± 9.2

85 (82%)

18.6 ± 7.5

3.8 ± 2.0

n/a

0 (0%)

1) ITB subperiosteal (100%) 2) POP (28.3%)

5.5 ± 2.4

11/16

 Guo et al. 2018

China

Retr

31 (31)

29 (94)

66.5 ± n/a

31 (100%)

21.7 ± 4.6

7.7 ± 1.7

n/a

0 (0%)

Release of the ITB (100%), PLC (100%), LCL (100%)

0.8 ± 0.1

16/24

 Jaju et al. 2018

India

Pros

32 (32)

22 (69)

62.7 ± 6.9

9 (28%)

18.59 ± 8.32

3.7 ± 0.9

8.25 ± 4.38

0 (0%)

1) PLC transverse (100%) 2) ITB pie-crusting (47%)

1.9 ± 0.7

11/16

 Boettner et al. 2016

USA

Retr

164 (181)

130 (79)

67 ± 9.3

164 (100%)

14.2 ± 4.9

5.2 ± 2.8

4.8 ± 7.3

1 (0.6%)

1) ITB transverse (100%), PLC transverse (100%) and LCL transverse (100%)

2.0 ± 1.0

12/16

 Zhou et al. 2014

China

Retr

32 (37)

20 (63)

57.2 ± 6.1

22 (69%)

32.72 ± 9.68

4.89 ± 0.9

−0.78 ± 2.49

3 (8.1%)

1) PLC pie-crusting (100%) 2) LCL pie-crusting (100%) 3) POP transverse (24%)

10 ± 0.7

11/16

 Satish et al. 2013

India

Pros

27 (32)

17 (63)

54 ± 5.4

10 (37%)

25.4 ± 12

4 ± 2.5

n/a

2 (6.3%)

1) ITB subperiosteal (100%)

2) PLC transverse (59.3%)

3) POP (21.8%) + LCL (21.8%)

5.0 ± 1.2

12/16

 Chechik et al. 2012

Israel

Retr

42 (51)

38 (91)

72.7 ± 8.3

31 (74%)

17.5 ± 4.6

6.3 ± 2.2

[−1] ± 3

1 (2.0%)

1) Transverse release of the PLC (100%)

3.5 ± 1.9

10/16

 koskinen et al. 2011

Finland

Retr

48 (52)

46 (96)

66 ± 11.1

37 (77%)

23 ± 8.0

7 ± 5.6

9 ± 5.6 (in 25 knees)

1 (1.9%)

1) ITB pie-crusting (61.5%)

2) POP (40.4%) 3) LCL (18.6%) 4) PLC (5.8%)

9.0 ± 3.6

11/16

 Rajgopal et al. 2011

India

Retr

53 (78)

34 (64)

74 ± 10

16 (30%)

20.0 ± 7.2

5.0 ± 0.8

N/A

2 (2.6%)

1) ITB pie-crusting (100%)

2) POP pie-crusting (2.6%)

10.0 ± 1.2

9/16

 Apostolo-poulos et al. 2010

Greece

Pros

24 (24)

7 (29)

72 ± 5.6

17 (71%)

23 ± 4.9

5.5 ± 1.3

11 ± 4.3 (in 9 knees)

0 (0.0%)

1) ITB subperiosteal (100%)

2) LCL and POP subperiosteal (100%) 3) PLC (37.5%)

11.5 ± 1.8

11/16

 Boyer P et al. 2008

France

Retr

63 (63)

56 (89)

56.9 ± 11.9

43 (68%)

14.7 ± 3.7

1.0 ± 0.4

n/a

1 (1.6%)

1) ITB subperiosteal (100%)

2) LCL and POP subperiosteal (7.9%) 3) PLC (6.3%)

7.0 ± 1.5

10/16

 Elkus et al. 2004

USA

Pros

35 (42)

27 (77)

67 ± 12.7

28 (80%)

15.0 ± 5.1

5.0 ± 2.3

7.0 ± n/a

0 (0.0%)

1) PLC + LCL and POP transverse (100%)

2) ITB pie-crusting (100%)

9.0 ± 2.1

13/16

 Stern et al. 1991

USA

Retr

98 (134)

83 (85)

68 ± 8.8

88 (90%)

19.0 ± 8.4

7.0 ± 3.4

n/a

5 (3.7%)

1) PLC with LCL and POP transverse (100%) 2) ITB (n/a)

4.5 ± 1.5

11/16

Peroneal nerve release – with soft tissue release

 Xu J et al. 2020

China

Pros

30 (34)

21 (70)

70.2 ± 9.3

10 (33%)

31.3 ± 8.0

4.9 ± 2.0

n/a

0 (0%)

1) ITB pie-crusting (100%) 2) PLC pie-crusting (100%) 3) LCL and POP (n/a)

2.25 ± 0.4

12/16

 Cree et al. 1999

Australia

Retr

7 (7)

–

72 ± n/a

6 (86%)

24.0 ± 7.4

6.0 ± 2.2

n/a

1 (14.2%)

Not noted

0.6 ± 0.4

9/16

 Study

Country

Study design

Patients (knees)

Gender, female (%)

Age in years^a (mean ± SD)

Patients with OA (%)

Preop. aFTA^a (mean ± SD)

Postop. aFTA^a (mean ± SD)

preop FC^a (mean ± SD)

CPNP cases (%)

Soft tissue release in sequence of structures (%)

Osteo-tomy (% of knees)

Follow-up years (mean ± SD^a)

MINOR score

No peroneal nerve release – with osteotomies and soft tissue release

 Raut et al. 2020

UK

Retr

23 (25)

15 (65)

68 ± 11.4

14 (61%)

20 ± 4.3

4 ± 1.3

n/a

0 (0%)

1) ITB subperiosteal (100%)

2) POP (100%)

LFEO (100%)

5 ± 3.8

10/16

 Mou et al. 2019

China

RCT

25 (27)

–

63 ± 11

n/a

31.6 ± 8

7.0 ± 2.4

n/a

0 (0%)

1) ITB pie-crusting (100%) 2) PLC (n/a)

MFEO (100%)

4.6 ± 0.9

–

 Cheng et al. 2019

China

Pros

15 (16)

14 (93)

67.4 ± 6.2

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0 (0%)

1) ITB pie-crusting (100%) 2) PLC transverse (100%)

MFEO (100%)

2.2 ± 0.7

12/16

 Scior et al. 2018

Germany

Pros

98 (98)

71 (72)

71.6 ± 10.5

n/a

14.9 ± 2.7

6.4 ± 0.6

4 ± 3

0 (0%)

1) ITB subperiosteal (100%) 2) PLC transverse (100%)

LFEO (100%)

4.5 ± 1

9/16

 Conjeski et al. 2018

USA

Retr

10 (12)

7 (70)

68 ± 13.3

9 (90%)

16.4 ± 4.2

5.5 ± 0.9

n/a

1 (8.3%)

No initial soft tissue release

LFEO (100%)

2.9 ± 2.7

10/16

 Strauch et al. 2013

Germany

Pros

27 (27)

–

69.5 ± 13.2

n/a

17.7 ± 5.0

7.2 ± 3.8

n/a

0 (0%)

ITB transverse (100%)

LFEO (100%)

1 ± n/a

9/16

 Hadjicostas et al. 2008

Germany

Pros

15 (15)

–

73 ± 4.6

13 (87%)

n/a

n/a

n/a

0 (0%)

Partial release of the PLC (n/a)

LFEO (100%)

2.3 ± 0.9

12/16

 Brilhault et al. 2002

France

Pros

13 (13)

12 (92)

73 ± 3.6

12 (92%)

n/a

n/a

n/a

0 (0%)

ITB subperiosteal (100%)

LFEO (100%)

4.7 ± 1.7

11/16