Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38750523›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024

Trifocal versus Pentafocal bone transport in segmental tibial defects: a matched comparative analysis for posttraumatic osteomyelitis treatment.

Yimurang Hamiti, Patiman Abudureyimu, Gang Lyu, Aihemaitijiang Yusufu, Maimaiaili Yushan

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. [Zeta-focal bone lengthening for bone defects after fracture-related infection: a two-case based research].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Yimurang Hamiti *Department of Microrepair and Reconstructive Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, P. R. China.
Patiman Abudureyimu *Imaging Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, P. R. China.
Gang LyuDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Urumqi, Xinjiang, P. R. China.
Aihemaitijiang Yusufu *Department of Microrepair and Reconstructive Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, Xinjiang, P. R. China. ahmatjanyusuf@163.com.
Maimaiaili Yushan *Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Urumqi, Xinjiang, P. R. China. 424257832@qq.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China NO. 8236150009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and clinical results of trifocal bone transport (TBT) and pentafocal bone transport (PBT) in treating distal tibial defects > 6 cm resulting from posttraumatic osteomyelitis, highlighting the potential advantages and challenges of each method.

methodsA retrospective assessment was conducted on an overall population of 46 eligible patients with distal tibial defects > 6 cm who received treatment between January 2015 and January 2019. Propensity score analysis was used to pair 10 patients who received TBT with 10 patients who received PBT. The outcomes assessed included demographic information, external fixation time (EFT), external fixation index (EFI), bone and functional outcomes assessed using the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov (ASAMI) scoring system, and postoperative complications evaluated using the Paley classification.

resultsThe demographic and baseline data of the two groups were comparable. Following radical debridement, the average tibial defect was 7.02 ± 0.68 cm. The mean EFT was significantly shorter in the PBT group (130.9 ± 16.0 days) compared to the TBT group (297.3 ± 14.3 days). Similarly, the EFI was lower in the PBT group (20.67 ± 2.75 days/cm) than in the TBT group (35.86 ± 3.69 days/cm). Both groups exhibited satisfactory postoperative bone and functional results. Pin site infection was the most common complication and the rates were significantly different between the groups, with the PBT group demonstrating a higher incidence.

conclusionBoth TBT and PBT effectively treat posttraumatic tibial defects greater than 6 cm, with PBT offering more efficient bone regeneration. However, PBT is associated with a higher rate of pin site infections, highlighting the importance of careful management in these complex procedures and emphasizing the need for expert surgical execution and tailored treatment approaches in orthopedic reconstructive surgery.

Indexed as

External FixatorsFracture FixationInternal FixatorsOsteomyelitisTibiaTibial FracturesAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBone transportDistraction osteogenesisIlizarov techniqueOsteomyelitisTibial defect

Identifiers

PMID38750523
PMCPMC11094878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.