ArticleScientific reports2023
Shortening/re-lengthening and nailing versus bone transport for the treatment of segmental femoral bone defects.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ilizarov method and its combined methods in the treatment of long bone defects of the lower extremity: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Pooled it
- Bioactive hydrogels for bone tissue engineering: Design strategies, bioactive cargo delivery, and artificial intelligence-assisted clinical translation.Asian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2026Review
- Bilateral femur osteomyelitis: A rare case with successful outcome.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- [Application of limb shortening/re-lengthening technique andZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Segmental femoral bone defects are a severe challenge for orthopedic trauma surgeons. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of the shortening/re-lengthening and nailing (SRN) technique with the traditional bone transport (BT) technique in treating patients with such defects. A retrospective study was conducted involving 46 patients with segmental femoral bone defects, with 21 cases treated using the SRN technique (SRN group) and 25 cases managed with the traditional BT technique (BT group). The mean length of the bone defect was 5.8 ± 1.1 cm in the SRN group and 6.1 ± 1.6 cm in the BT group. Various parameters including time in frame, external fixation index, self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) scores, bone healing scores, limb function scores, and complications were recorded. The mean time in frame for the SRN group was 3.7 ± 1.4 months, significantly shorter than the 9.4 ± 3.7 months observed in the BT group (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the mean external fixation index for the SRN group was 0.62 ± 0.12 months/cm, significantly lower than the 1.50 ± 0.19 months/cm observed in the BT group (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in bone healing scores between the SRN and BT groups (p = 0.237). The SAS scores and incidence of complications were significantly lower in the SRN group compared to the BT group (p < 0.05). Overall, the SRN technique demonstrated superior clinical efficacy compared to the traditional BT technique for the management of segmental femoral bone defects, with shorter time in frame, lower external fixation index, and reduced complications. Therefore, the SRN technique may be considered an optimal choice for treating patients with such conditions.
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.