ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Application of the induced membrane technique of tibia using extracorporeal vs. intracorporeal formation of a cement spacer: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Experimental study on the causes of spontaneous osteogenesis of Masquelet technique induced membrane].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Article
- Use of Autologous Bone Graft with Bioactive Glass as a Bone Substitute in the Treatment of Large-Sized Bone Defects of the Femur and Tibia.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere were two ways of preparing the cement spacer: intracorporeal and extracorporeal formation. This study aimed to investigate the outcomes of extracorporeal vs. intracorporeal formation of a spacer using the induced membrane technique (IMT) for repairing bone defects of the tibia.
methodsSixty-eight patients with tibial defects treated with IMT were analyzed retrospectively. According to the mode of bone cement preparation, patients were divided into intracorporeal and extracorporeal groups (36 vs. 32 respectively). All patients were followed up for 12-48 months (average 18.7 months). The time interval between the first and second stages, the time required to remove the spacer, injury of the IM or bone ends, bone healing and infection control, as well as the functional recovery (Johner-Wruhs scoring), were compared.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the preoperative data between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the time interval (12.64 ± 4.41vs. 13.22 ± 4.96 weeks), infection control (26/28 vs. 20/23), bone healing time (7.47 ± 2.13vs. 7.50 ± 2.14 mos), delayed union (2/36 vs. 2/32), nonunion (2/36 vs. 1/32), an excellent or good rate of limb functional recovery (30/36 vs. 26/32) between the intracorporeal and extracorporeal groups (P > 0.05). However, the time required to remove (3.97 ± 2.34 min) was longer and the injury of IM or bone ends (28/36) was greater in the intracorporeal group than those in the extracorporeal group (0.56 ± 0.38 min and 1/32, respectively), showing a significant difference (P < 0.05).
conclusionBoth approaches were shown to have similar effects on bone defect repair and infection control. However, intracorporeal formation had advantages in terms of additional stability, while extracorporeal formation had advantages in terms of removal. Therefore, the specific method should be selected according to specific clinical needs. We recommended the extracorporeal or the modified extracorporeal formation in most cases.
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.