Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37587224›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Shortening/re-lengthening and nailing versus bone transport for the treatment of segmental femoral bone defects.

Na Yang, Teng Ma, Lu Liu, YiBo Xu, Zhong Li, Kun Zhang, Qian Wang, Qiang Huang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. [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 · 2025
    Article
  5. Motorised Intramedullary Bone Transport: A Scoping Review.Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Na Yang *Department of Orthopedics, Hong Hui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710054, Shaanxi, China.
Teng Ma *Department of Orthopedics, Hong Hui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710054, Shaanxi, China.
Lu Liu *Department of Orthopedics, Hong Hui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710054, Shaanxi, China.
YiBo XuDepartment of Orthopedics, Hong Hui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710054, Shaanxi, China.
Zhong LiDepartment of Orthopedics, Hong Hui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710054, Shaanxi, China.
Kun ZhangDepartment of Orthopedics, Hong Hui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710054, Shaanxi, China.
Qian WangDepartment of Orthopedics, Hong Hui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710054, Shaanxi, China. tianyunqilai@163.com.
Qiang HuangDepartment of Orthopedics, Hong Hui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710054, Shaanxi, China. 369292735@qq.com.
Xi'an Honghui Hospital · CNXi'an Jiaotong University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Fracture Fixation, IntramedullarySurgeonsExtremitiesFemurHumansRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37587224
PMCPMC10432379
OpenAlexW4385874409

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.