One retrospective comparative series was included in the review (n=32).
There was a significant improvement in mechanical axis deviation for the gradual correction group compared with the acute correction group both postoperatively (13.9mm versus1.5 mm; p=0.001) and at final follow-up (17.1mm versus 3.1mm; p=0.001); 94.4% of the gradual correction group met criteria for accuracy of reduction compared with 50% of the acute correction group (p=0.01).
A further 17 case series that did not satisfy the aims of the review offered no evidence of an advantage for either form of treatment.