ReviewActa ortopedica brasileira2024
BONE RECONSTRUCTION IN THE TREATMENT OF TIBIAL HEMIMELIA: AN ALTERNATIVE TO AMPUTATION?
Review in Acta ortopedica brasileira, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges in Reconstruction and Limb Lengthening Surgery for Congenital Lower Limb Deficiencies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- [Tibial aplasia. Treatment by tibialization of the fibula and compensation for shortening by holding the foot in equinus position in Bangui, Central African Republic].Medecine tropicale et sante internationale · 2025Article
- New Reconstruction Technique in Combined Tibial and Fibular Hemimelia.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of bone reconstruction and lengthening compared to amputation in the treatment of tibial hemimelia for patients and their families. Methods: Systematic review of articles published in English and Portuguese between 1982 and 2022 in the MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane and SciELO databases. The variables of interest were: year of publication, sample characteristics, classification of tibial hemimelia according to Jones, treatment outcome and follow-up time. Results: A total of eleven articles were included in the scope of this review. The studies involved 131 patients, 53.4% male and 46.6% female. The age of the patients who underwent a surgical procedure ranged from 1 year and 10 months to 15 years. The most common type was Jones' I (40.9%). The most recurrent complications in the reconstruction treatment were: infection of the external fixator path, flexion contracture (mainly of the knee), reduction in the range of motion of the knee and ankle. Conclusion: We did not find enough relevant studies in the literature to prove the superiority of reconstruction. Amputation remains the gold standard treatment for tibial hemimelia to this day.
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.