Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33008361›Full record

ReviewBMC surgery2020

Complication of osteo reconstruction by utilizing free vascularized fibular bone graft.

Qifeng Ou, Panfeng Wu, Zhengbing Zhou, Ding Pan, Ju-Yu Tang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Qifeng OuDepartment of Orthopedics, Hand and Microsurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.87 XiangYa Road, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Panfeng WuDepartment of Orthopedics, Hand and Microsurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.87 XiangYa Road, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Zhengbing ZhouDepartment of Orthopedics, Hand and Microsurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.87 XiangYa Road, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Ding PanDepartment of Orthopedics, Hand and Microsurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.87 XiangYa Road, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China.
Ju-Yu TangDepartment of Orthopedics, Hand and Microsurgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.87 XiangYa Road, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, China. tangjuyu@csu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4956-0573
Central South University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81472104National Natural Science Foundation of China 81871577
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The success of free vascularized fibular bone graft (FVFBG) has accelerated the osteo reconstruction which results from trauma, resection of a tumor or an infectious bone segment, or correction of congenital deformity. But the complication behind should not be overlooked. The failure could necessitate a second surgery, which prolong the rehabilitation period and produce further health cost. Worst, the patients may suffer a permanent impaired ankle function, or a sustained morpho-functional loss on reconstructive area which are hard to save. To provide an overview of the complication related to reconstruction by FVFBG, a narrative review is conducted to identify the complications including their types and rates, the contributing factors, the approaches to measure and the techniques to avoid. Methodologically, by quick research on Pubmed and abstract reading of reviews, we characterize five reconstructive areas where FVFBG were most frequently applied: extremities, mandible, spine, osteonecrosis of femoral head, and penile. Following, the complications on different reconstructive areas are retrieved, studied and presented in five (or more specifically, six) separate sections. By the way, meaningful difference between FVFBG and other bone flap was presented in a few words if necessary. Donor-site morbidities were studied and summarized as a whole. In these literatures, the evidences documented on limb and mandibular reconstruction have the fullest detail, followed by the spine and lastly the penile. In conclusion, FVFBG, though a mature technique, needs further deep and comprehensive study and maybe device-based assistance to achieve better reconstructive effect and minimize donor-site damage.

Indexed as

Bone TransplantationPlastic Surgery ProceduresAccidental FallsAgedFearFibulaHumansProspective StudiesComplicationExtremitiesFibular epiphyseal transferFree vascularized fibular graftMandibleOsteo reconstructionSpine

Identifiers

PMID33008361
PMCPMC7531124
OpenAlexW3091478994

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.