ArticleActa orthopaedica2021
Complications common in motorized intramedullary bone transport for non-infected segmental defects: a retrospective review of 15 patients.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disintegration of the Second-Generation Precice Bone Transport Nail During Removal Is Still an Issue: A Case Report.Case reports in orthopedics · 2026Article
- [Treatment of bony defects in femur and tibia : Established and new concepts].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- [Development and principles of intramedullary and extramedullary segmental bone transport: overview and clinical results].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- Limb reconstruction in a resource-limited environment.SICOT-J · 2021Article
- Do Surgeons Agree on Severity and Origin of Complications in Bone-lengthening Nails? An Inter- and Intra-rater Reliability Study.Strategies in trauma and limb reconstructionArticle
- Motorised Intramedullary Bone Transport: A Scoping Review.Strategies in trauma and limb reconstructionArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose - Since the introduction of intramedullary bone transport nails only very few cases have been reported in the literature. Thus we evaluated the results and complications in a single institution retrospective cohort.Patients and methods - 15 (median age 40 years (18-70), 8 males) consecutive patients, were included and the electronic patient records and radiographs were reviewed. Complications were severity graded and categorized as device or non-device related.Results - The segmental bone loss was due to non-union site in 8 femurs and 4 tibias, or traumatic bone loss in 2 femurs and 1 tibia. The segmental bone defect was a median of 3 cm (0.5-10). 9 of 10 femoral cases and 4 of 5 tibial cases healed with the bone transport nail. All 15 patients had a healed docking site and regenerate at the end of treatment after a median of 13 months (6-38). 24 complications (15 device related and 9 non-device related) occurred in 11/15 patients with a minimum follow-up of 6 months after nail removal. The number of unplanned surgeries due to device related complications was: 0 in 9 patients, 1 in 3 patients, 2 in 1 patient, 3 in 2 patients.Interpretation - Segmental bone defects can heal with a bone transport nail. However, the number of complications was high and 15 out of 24 complications were devicerelated. Optimizing nail design is therefore needed to reduce complications in intramedullary bone transport.
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.