ArticlePloS one2023
Osmotic pump with potential for bone lengthening distracts continuously in vitro and in vivo.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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.
- Otic Drug Delivery Systems: Current and Future Perspectives.Current pharmaceutical design · 2026Review
- What's new in pediatric lower limb reconstruction?Journal of children's orthopaedics · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn pediatric orthopedics, long bone lengthening procedures are routinely performed using manual, motorized or magnetically controlled implants. This study aims to prove expansion of a newly designed osmotic pump prior to long bone lengthening in living organisms and to rule out any complications related to in vivo conditions, such as congestion of the semipermeable membrane, local infection, or lack of water to drive the osmotic pump, as well as to compare in vivo and in vitro expansion data.
methodsOsmotic pumps, which were designed to distract a plate osteosynthesis, were inserted in the dorsal paraspinal musculature of four piglets. To compare the performance of the pumps in in vivo and in vitro conditions, another set of pumps was submerged in physiologic saline solution at different temperatures. The lengthening progress was measured radiographically and sonographically in the study animals.
resultsBoth, in vitro and in vivo tested osmotic pumps started distraction after an intended rest phase of four days and distracted evenly over the following twelve days. No complications, clogging or damages occurred. However, we observed a temperature dependency of the distraction rate ranging from 0.98 mm/day at 39°C to 1.10 mm/day at 42°C. With a second setup, we confirmed that the distraction rate differed by 72% within a measured temperature interval of 14° C.
conclusionsThe data presented here confirm that the novel osmotic pump showed comparable lengthening characteristics in vivo and in vitro. No complications, such as congestion of the semipermeable membrane, local infection, or lack of water to drive the osmotic pump were observed. Thus, osmotic pumps may have great potential in future applications such as long bone lengthening procedures, where continuous distraction probably provides a better bone quality than intermittent lengthening procedures. The fact that one pump failed to elongate in each condition, highlights the importance of technical improvement, but also demonstrates that this was not due to different circumstances within the in vivo or in vitro condition.
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.