ArticleStrategies in trauma and limb reconstruction
Re-use of Motorised Intramedullary Limb Lengthening Nails.
Article in Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reactivating Sleeping Intramedullary Nail in a 16-Year-Old Female with Polyostotic Fibrous Dysplasia: A Case Report on Complications and Potential Solutions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study reviews the re-use of implanted motorised intramedullary lengthening nails previously used for limb lengthening. Materials and methods: A retrospective review was performed on the re-use of motorised intramedullary lengthening nails. All patients had a magnetically controlled intramedullary lengthening nail in the femur, tibia, or humerus previously utilised for either lengthening or compression. Patients were included if the magnetically controlled intramedullary lengthening nail underwent attempted re-use either in the same lengthening episode or in a temporally separate lengthening treatment requiring another corticotomy. Results: Ten patients with 12 lengthening episodes were analysed including five tibial, five femoral and two humeral segments. Overall, seven of 12 nails (58%) were successfully re-deployed without the need for nail exchange. Two of three nails were successfully retracted and re-used for continued distraction in the same lengthening treatment. Five of nine nails (56%) were successfully reactivated in a subsequent, later lengthening episode. Conclusion: Re-use of a magnetically controlled limb lengthening nail is an off-label technique that may be considered for patients requiring ongoing or later lengthening of the femur, tibia or humerus. Regardless of whether the nail is used in the same lengthening episode or separate lengthening episode, surgeons should be prepared for exchange to a new implant. Clinical significance: Re-use of a magnetically controlled intramedullary lengthening nail will reduce surgical trauma and save implant cost in limb lengthening treatment but may only be possible in half of attempted cases. How to cite this article: Georgiadis AG, Nahm NJ, Dahl MT. Re-use of Motorised Intramedullary Limb Lengthening Nails. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2023;18(2):106-110.
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.