ArticleScientific reports2024
Semi-focal bone transport versus traditional bone transport technique for the management of large tibial bone defects after trauma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tibial bone transport using external fixation in adults: a systematic review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Pooled it
- The "Bell-Tent Technique" for Management of Periarticular, Cavitary Bone Defects of the Tibia: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Bioactive hydrogels for bone tissue engineering: Design strategies, bioactive cargo delivery, and artificial intelligence-assisted clinical translation.Asian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2026Review
- Patient-Specific Lattice Implants for Segmental Femoral and Tibial Reconstruction (Part 1): Defect Patterns, Fixation Strategies and Reconstruction Options-A Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How to deal with large tibial bone defects is still controversial. The purpose of this research was to compare the semi-focal bone transport (SFBT) technique with traditional bone transport (TBT) technique for treating such patients. Sixty-two patients were included and retrospectively analyzed. In all cases, after radical debridement large tibial bone defects remained. Patients were treated by the SFBT or TBT technique. The distraction, consolidation duration and complications were recorded by the patients' medical files. Based on the Association for the Study and Application of Methods of Ilizarov (ASAMI) standard, the bone and functional results were evaluated. The mean bone defect size was 7.7 ± 1.6 cm and 7.5 ± 2.1 cm for SFBT and TBT patients. The mean external fixation index (EFI) was 1.51 ± 0.14 months/cm and 1.89 ± 0.25 months/cm for SFBT and TBT patients (p < 0.05), respectively. With respect to bone and function results, there was no significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean number of complications per patient was 1.1 ± 0.6 and 1.6 ± 0.7 for SFBT and TBT patients (p < 0.05). Compared to the traditional bone transport technique, patients using the semi-focal bone transport technique achieved better clinical effects, including shorter EFI and less complications. Therefore, the SFBT technique could be a new option for patients with large tibial bone defects.
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.