ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2016
Regenerate bone stimulation following limb lengthening: a meta-analysis.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Osteotomy Site Venting Enhances Femoral Bone Consolidation With Magnetic Intramedullary Lengthening Nails.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2024Article
- Importance of bone health in bone lengthening.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2024Article
- Is the High Healing Index a Complication of Progressive Long Bone Lengthening? Observations from a Cohort of 178 Children Treated with Circular External Fixation for Lower Limb Length Discrepancy.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- To Angulate or Not to Angulate the Ulna during the Progressive Distraction Period Performed with a Monolateral External Fixator in Paediatric Patients with a Chronic Monteggia Fracture?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Mechanical Characterization at the Microscale of Mineralized Bone Callus after Bone Lengthening.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- An Efficient and Reproducible Protocol for Distraction Osteogenesis in a Rat Model Leading to a Functional Regenerated Femur.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimb lengthening with external fixation is performed to treat patients with leg length discrepancy or short stature. Although the procedure has a high rate of success, one potential drawback from limb lengthening is the amount of time spent in the fixation device while regenerate bone consolidates. Although some studies have assessed different treatment modalities, there has not been a study that has systematically evaluated whether low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) or pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) have significant effects on regenerate bone growth. The purpose of this study was to evaluate these two non-pharmacological treatment options to stimulate regenerate bone, and to assess whether they affect the treatment time in limb lengthening.
methodsUtilizing the electronic databases Medline, Embase and Ovid, we performed a literature search for studies describing the application of LIPUS or PEMF following limb lengthening. With the aid of a statistical software package, Forest-Plots were generated to compare the differences in bone healing index with and without the use of regenerate bone stimulation.
resultsA total of 7 studies assessed these two bone stimulation modalities in a cohort of 153 patients. Overall, the mean healing index was 11.7 days/cm faster when using bone stimulation that in the comparison cohorts (33.7 vs 45.4 day, standardized mean difference of 1.16; p = 0.003).
conclusionAmongst the drawbacks from limb lengthening is the relatively high rate of non- and delayed-union. Several methods, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, have been investigated for their potential to stimulate the growth of regenerate bone. After systematically evaluating the limited and heterogeneous current literature, we found that LIPUS and PEMF both decreased the time for bone healing (healing index in days/cm) of the newly formed regenerate bone in an adequately selected cohort of patients that underwent limb lengthening. However, a high number of complications should be noted, which could be attributed to the lengthening procedure or to the additional bone stimulation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016039024.
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.