Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31860680›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Comparison between the induced membrane technique and distraction osteogenesis in treating segmental bone defects: An experimental study in a rat model.

Zhen Shen, Haixiong Lin, Guoqian Chen, Yan Zhang, Zige Li, Ding Li, Lei Xie, Yue Li, Feng Huang, Ziwei Jiang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Total flavonoids of Rhizoma Drynariae enhances CD31International journal of molecular medicine · 2022
    Article
  5. The induced membrane technique in animal models: a systematic review.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zhen ShenFirst Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Haixiong LinFirst Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Guoqian ChenFifth Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yan ZhangFirst Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zige LiFirst Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Ding LiFirst Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Lei XieTropical Medicine Institute, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yue LiDepartment of Orthopaedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Feng HuangDepartment of Orthopaedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Ziwei JiangDepartment of Orthopaedics, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CNHunan Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that treatment plans for segmental bone defects (SBDs) are affected by the bone defect sizes. If the selected treatment was not the most appropriate, it would not contribute to bone healing, but increase complications. The induced membrane technique (IM) and distraction osteogenesis (DO) have been proved to be effective in treating SBDs. However, the differences between the two in therapeutic effects on SBDs with different sizes are still unclear. Thus, we aimed to observe the effects of IM and DO on different sizes of SBDs and to further determine what method is more appropriate for what defect size. Rat models of 4-, 6-and 8-mm mid-diaphyseal defects using IM and DO techniques were established. X-rays, micro-CT, histological and immunohistochemical examinations were performed to assess bone repair. Faster bone formation rate, shorter treatment duration, higher expressions of OPN and OCN and higher parameters of bone properties including bone mineral density (BMD), bone volume/total tissue volume (BV/TV), mineral apposition rate (MAR) and mineral surface/bone surface (MS/BS) were found in 4-mm SBDs treated with DO than in those with IM treatment. However, the results were reversed and IM outperformed DO in bone repair capacity for 8-mm SBDs, while no significant difference emerges in the case of 6-mm SBDs. This study suggests that the therapeutic effects of IM and DO may be subjected to sizes of bone defects and the best treatment size of defects is different between the two. For small-sized SBDs, DO may be more suitable and efficient than IM, but IM has advantages over DO for over-sized SBDs, while DO and IM show similar bone repair capability in moderate-sized SBDs, which would offer a new insight into how to choose DO and IM for SBDs in clinical practice and provide references for further clinical research.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsBone DensityBone RegenerationDiaphysesImmunohistochemistryLower Extremity Deformities, CongenitalMaleOsteoblastsOsteocalcinOsteogenesisOsteogenesis, DistractionOsteopontinRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyTibiaOsteocalcinOsteopontin

Identifiers

PMID31860680
PMCPMC6924672
OpenAlexW2995927909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.