Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38404564›Full record

ReviewStrategies in trauma and limb reconstruction

Universal Long Bone Nonunion Classification.

Leonid N Solomin, Anton A Semenistyy, Artem V Komarov, Vladimir V Khominets, Gerard A Sheridan, S Robert Rozbruch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Case report:JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026
    Article
  2. Postoperative Intravenous Ketorolac Does Not Affect Nonunion Risk in Surgically Treated Long Bone Shaft Fractures.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Prognostic implications of a CD8Frontiers in immunology · 2024
    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

6 authors.

Leonid N SolominDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Vreden National Research Orthopedic Centre, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3705-3280
Anton A SemenistyyDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2477-7482
Artem V KomarovDepartment of Military Traumatology and Orthopedics, S. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8260-0311
Vladimir V KhominetsDepartment of Military Traumatology and Orthopedics, S. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7000-6614
Gerard A SheridanDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0970-3274
S Robert RozbruchDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1632-4600

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim and background: The management of bone union disorders is a complex problem in orthopaedics, requiring a reliable and comprehensive classification system for accurate diagnosis and treatment. Despite advances in understanding pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment in this area, there is no generally accepted classification system. The aim of our work was to create a comprehensive classification, which will systemize the vast majority of bone union disorders, underline their differences and form the basis for their treatment. Methods: The key criteria for nonunion evaluation and treatment were identified based on the conducted literature review: Time from the initial event (delayed union or nonunion), location, type of pathology (A, Hypertrophic; B, Normotrophic; C, Oligotrophic) and the presence of hardware. Based on these criteria the ULBNC has been developed. Atrophic nonunions were excluded from this classification as they are considered segmental bone defects with special classification. Results: The ULBNC is based on the same principles of coding as the "gold standard" AO/OTA Fractures Classification system with alpha-numeric coding "from simple to complex." The choice of treatment method depends on the type, group, and subgroup of the nonunion as described. Conclusion: Universal Long Bone Nonunion Classification (ULBNC) is an alphanumeric system that describes the localization, type of pathology and morphologic characteristics of a nonunion. The use of ULBNC in practice and research will optimize and standardize the treatment of various types of bone healing disorders and eventually improve clinical outcomes. How to cite this article: Solomin LN, Semenistyy AA, Komarov AV,

Indexed as

Aseptic nonunionAtrophic nonunionBone defectBone lossClassificationHypertrophic nonunionNonunionNormotrophic nonunionOligotrophic nonunionPseudarthrosis

Identifiers

PMID38404564
PMCPMC10891356

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.