Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28736619›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2017

The role of orthobiologics in foot and ankle surgery: Allogenic bone grafts and bone graft substitutes.

James Wee, Gowreeson Thevendran

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Comparative Studies of Bone Graft and Orthobiologics for Foot Ankle Arthrodesis: A Critical Review.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. The role of biologic in foot and ankle trauma-a review of the literature.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2018
    Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

James WeeTan Tock Seng Hospital, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, 308433, Singapore.
Gowreeson ThevendranTan Tock Seng Hospital, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, 308433, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Orthobiologics are biological substances that are used therapeutically for their positive effects on healing skeletal and soft-tissue injuries. The array of orthobiological products currently available to the foot and ankle surgeon is wide, and includes bone allografts, bone substitutes, growth factors, and chondral scaffolds. Nonetheless, despite the surge in interest and usage of orthobiologics, there remains a relative paucity of research addressing their specific applications in foot and ankle surgery. In this review, we attempt to provide an overview of the literature on commonly available allogenic bone grafts and bone substitutes.There is Level II, III and IV evidence addressing allogenic bone grafts in primary arthrodesis and osteotomy procedures in foot and ankle surgery, which compares favourably with autogenic bone grafts in terms of fusion rates and clinical outcomes (often with fewer complications), and supports a Grade B recommendation for its use.Pertaining to bone substitutes, the multiplicity of products, coupled with a lack of large prospective clinical trials, makes firm recommendations difficult. Level II and IV studies of calcium phosphate and calcium sulphate products in displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures have found favourable results in addressing bone voids, maintaining reduction and promoting union, meriting a Grade B recommendation. Evidence for TCP is limited to level IV studies reporting similarly good outcomes in intra-articular calcaneal fractures, warranting a Grade C recommendation. The use of demineralised bone matrix products in hindfoot and ankle fusions has been described in Level II and III studies, with favourable results in achieving fusion and good clinical outcomes, supporting a Grade B recommendation for these indications.Overall, despite the general lack of high-level evidence in foot and ankle surgery, allogenic bone grafts and bone substitutes continue to hold front-line roles in treating the bone defects encountered in trauma, tumour, and deformity correction surgery. However, more investigation is required before firm recommendations can be made. Cite this article:

Indexed as

allogenic bone graftsbone graft substitutesorthobiologics

Identifiers

PMID28736619
PMCPMC5508857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.