ArticleScientific reports2023
Proximal versus distal bone transport for the management of large segmental tibial defect: a clinical case series.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of Post-Traumatic Diaphyseal and Distal Tibial Bone Defects by Distraction Osteogenesis: A Monocentric Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Effect of Screw Distribution on Stability and Interfragmentary Strain of Lower Tibial Fractures: A Finite Element Analysis.Current medical science · 2025Article
- Free iliac crest grafting technology for the management of critical-sized tibial bone defect.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This retrospective study compared proximal bone transport and distal bone transport in a series of cases diagnosed with large segmental tibial defects. Patients with a tibial segmental defect (> 5 cm) were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-nine patients were treated using proximal bone transport technique (PBT group) and 21 cases were managed by distal bone transport technique (DBT group). We recorded the demographic information, operation indexes, external fixation index (EFI), visual analog score (VAS), limb function scores, and complications. Patients were followed for 24-52 months. There was no significant difference in operation time, blood loss, time in frame, EFI and HSS score between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, the PBT group displayed better clinical effects than the DBT group, including higher AOFAS scores, lower VAS, and complication incidence (p < 0.05). In particular, the incidence of Grade-II pin-tract infection, transient loss of ankle movement, and foot drop was significantly lower in PBT group than that in DBT group (p < 0.05). Although both methods could be used safely for the management of large segmental tibial defects, the proximal bone transport may confer greater patient satisfaction because of better ankle functions and lower complications.
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.