ReviewBMJ case reports2020
Cambridge experience in spontaneous bone regeneration after traumatic segmental bone defect: a case series and review of literature.
Review in BMJ case reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Use of Osteo-Inductive 3D-Printed Scaffolds Covered with a Pleiotrophin Peptide for Bone Defects: An In Vivo Experimental Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Management of post-traumatic femoral defects with a monorail external fixator over an intramedullary nail.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022Article
- Bone transport with magnetic intramedullary nails in long bone defects.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2021Review
- Cambridge Protocol for Management of Segmental Bone Loss.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-energy traumatic long bone defects are some of the most challenging to reconstruct. Although cases of spontaneous bone regeneration in these defects have been reported, we are aware of no management guidelines or recommendations for when spontaneous bone regeneration should be considered a viable management option. We aim to identify how certain patient characteristics and surgical factors may help predict spontaneous bone regeneration. A total of 26 cases with traumatic segmental defects were treated at our institution, with eight cases (30.8%) undergoing spontaneous regeneration. We discuss four in detail. Six (75%) reported a degree of periosteal preservation, four (50%) were associated with traumatic brain injury and none were complicated by infection. The average time to spontaneous bone regeneration was 2.06 months. According to our cases, patients with favourable characteristics may benefit from delaying surgical treatment by 6 weeks to monitor for any signs of spontaneous bone formation.
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.