Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33674962›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2022

Distance from the magnification device contributes to differences in lower leg length measured in patients with TSF correction.

Marc-Daniel Ahrend, Michael Rühle, Fabian Springer, Heiko Baumgartner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marc-Daniel AhrendDepartment of Traumatology and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Trauma Center Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls University of Tübingen, Schnarrenberg-Str. 95, 72076, Tübingen, Germany. marc@ahrend.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7044-4182
Michael RühleDepartment of Traumatology and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Trauma Center Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls University of Tübingen, Schnarrenberg-Str. 95, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Fabian SpringerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Heiko BaumgartnerDepartment of Traumatology and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Trauma Center Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls University of Tübingen, Schnarrenberg-Str. 95, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
BG Klinik Tübingen · DEAO Foundation · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn absence of deformity or injury of the contralateral leg, the contralateral leg length is used to plan limb lengthening. Length variability on long-leg weight-bearing radiographs (LLR) can lead to inaccurate deformity correction. The aim of the study was to (1) examine the variability of the measured limb length on LLR and (2) to examine the influence of the position of the magnification device. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe limb lengths of 38 patients during deformity correction with a taylor-spatial-frame were measured retrospectively on 7.3 ± 2.6 (4-13) LLR per patient. The measured length of the untreated limb between LLR were used to determine length variability between LLR in each patient. To answer the secondary aim, we took LLR from a 90 cm validation distance. A magnification device was placed in different positions: at the middle of the 90 cm distance (z-position), 5 cm anterior and 5 cm posterior from the z-position, at the bottom and top of the validation distance as well as 5 cm medial and 15 cm lateral from the z-position.

resultsThe measured length variability ranged within a patient from 10 to 50 mm. 76% of patients had a measured limb length difference of ≥ 2 cm between taken LLR. Compared to length measurement of the 90 cm test object with the magnification device in the z-position (90.1 cm), positioning the device 5 cm anterior led to smaller (88.6 cm) and 5 cm posterior led to larger measurements (91.7 cm). The measured length with the magnification device at the bottom, top, medial or lateral (90.4; 89.9; 90.2; 89.8 cm) to the object differed not relevantly.

conclusionsHigh variability of limb length between different LLR within one patient was observed. This can result from different positions of the magnification device in the sagittal plane. These small changes in positioning the device should be avoided to achieve accurate deformity correction and bone lengthening. This should be considered for all length and size measurements on radiographs.

Indexed as

External FixatorsLeg Length InequalityHumansLegRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeExternal fixatorLengtheningLimb lengthLong-leg radiographsTSF

Identifiers

PMID33674962
PMCPMC9217775
OpenAlexW3135128535

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.