ReviewFoot & ankle orthopaedics2023
Contemporary Review: Autograft Bone Use in Foot and Ankle Surgery.
Review in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Nature to Innovation: Exploring Natural Biopolymers in 3D Bioprinting for Bone Regeneration.ACS omega · 2026Article
- Tideglusib-Preactivated Osteoblasts Encapsulated in Ceramic Particle-Reinforced GelMA Hydrogel for Enhanced Critical-Size Bone Defect Regeneration.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
- The Anti-Aging Effects of Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell Exosomes on Skin and Their Potential for Personalized Skincare Applications.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2025Review
- Arthrodesis using Iliac Crest autograft in revision surgery of the first metatarsophalangeal joint total arthroplasty for the treatment of Hallux Rigidus: a retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Arthroscopic Tibiotalar Arthrodesis Using an Arthroscopic Autologous Tissue Collector: A Technique Guide.Arthroscopy techniques · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bone autografts are frequently harvested for use in foot and ankle surgery. A commonly used harvest site is the iliac crest; however, because of known morbidity with this site, the tibia and calcaneus are attractive alternatives. There remains limited understanding regarding the osteogenic potential of autografts from each of these locations. In this review, we provided an update of the known data on bone autografts from the iliac crest, tibia, and calcaneus, focusing on the total cells harvested from each site as well as the presence of osteogenic osteoprogenitor cells. Level of Evidence: Level V, expert opinion.
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.