ArticleStrategies in trauma and limb reconstruction
Cost Comparison of Tibial Distraction Osteogenesis Using External Lengthening and Then Nailing vs Internal Magnetic Lengthening Nails.
Article in Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does Ossein-Hydroxyapatite Complex Improve the Results of Lower-Leg Lengthening Osteotomies with the Ilizarov Method?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Sequential Limb Lengthening: A Novel Staged Approach Combining External Fixation and a Motorized Intramedullary Lengthening Nail for a Large Posttraumatic Tibial Defect.Case reports in orthopedics · 2026Article
- Management Strategies for Failed Pilon Fractures: A Personalized Approach to Revision Reconstruction.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Measuring more than just centimeters: a scoping review of outcome measures in cosmetic stature lengthening.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Review
- Bone Regeneration After Nail Distraction Osteogenesis: Review of Current Knowledge and Application Combined with a Case Report with Radiological, Histological, and Electron Microscopic Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of Techniques Utilising External Fixation to Motorised Intramedullary Nails in the Treatment of Lower Limb Discrepancy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Strategies in trauma and limb reconstructionReview
- How Much Does Paediatric Femoral Lengthening Cost? A Cost Comparison between Magnetic Lengthening Nails and External Fixators.Strategies in trauma and limb reconstructionArticle
- Dual Magnetically Expandable Intramedullary Nails for Treatment of a Large Bony Defect in a Patient with Sarcoma: A Case Report.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
AIM AND
objectiveTibial lengthening can be performed by distraction osteogenesis via lengthening and then nailing (LATN) or by using a magnetic lengthening nail (MLN). MLN avoids the complications of external fixation while providing accurate and easily controlled lengthening. Concerns exist still regarding the high upfront cost of the magnetic nail, which serves to limit its use in resource-poor areas and decrease adoption among cost-conscious surgeons. The purpose of this study was to compare the hospital, surgeon, and total cost between LATN and MLN when used for tibial lengthening. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective review was performed comparing consecutive tibial lengthening using either LATN (n = 17) or MLN (n = 15). The number of surgical procedures and time to union were compared. Surgeon and hospital payments were used to perform cost analysis after adjusting for inflation using the consumer price index (CPI).
resultsPatients treated with MLN underwent fewer surgeries (3.6 vs 2.8; p < 0.001) but had a longer time to union as compared with patients treated with LATN (19.79 vs 27.84 weeks; p = 0.006). Total costs were similar ($50,345 vs $46,162; p = 0.249) although surgeon fees were lower for MLN as compared with LATN ($6,426 vs $4,428; p < 0.001).
conclusionLATN and MLN had similar overall costs in patients undergoing tibial lengthening. MLN was associated with fewer procedures but a longer time to union as compared with LATN. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Despite an increased upfront cost in MLN, there was no difference in total cost between LATN and MLN when used for tibial lengthening. Thus, in cases where either method is feasible, cost may not be a deciding factor when selecting the appropriate treatment. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Dvorzhinskiy A, Zhang DT, Fragomen AT,
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.