ArticleOrthopedic research and reviews2024
Modification of Ertl Operation for Short Stump.
Article in Orthopedic research and reviews, 2024. 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.
- Reconstruction of the Tibial Stump After Fibulectomy.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2025Article
- Reconstruction of a Short Tibial Stump with a Long Fibula Using the Ilizarov Technique: A Case Study.Orthopedic research and reviews · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite a sufficient number of papers on the technique of transtibial amputations, the technique of Ertl-type reamputation in short tibial stump remains unreported. Aim: To propose a modification of the Ertl operation in the proximal tibia. Case Presentation: The technique of bone bridge creation in a patient with a malformed stump in the upper third of the tibia at the expense of the regenerate formed after corticotomy of the tibial remnant and dosed distraction of the graft by the Ilizarov apparatus is described. Radiological, ultrasound and MRI methods were used to control the regenerate. The follow-up period was 36 months. At 3.5 months, a synostosis was formed, which allowed primary and then permanent prosthesis with a full-contact prosthesis. At 36 months, the organotypic remodelling of the regenerate was completed. The patient works, uses the prosthesis for 15-16 hours a day, and walks on average 8-10 km. Conclusion: The use of the proposed method makes it possible to obtain tibial synostosis without their shortening with elimination of valgus deviation of the fibula stump and the possibility of early functional loading. Synostosis formation occurs within 3.5 months after surgery. Organotypic bone remodelling occurs during primary and then permanent prosthetics. The formed bone bridge has a large support area, which is maintained during the whole follow-up period of 36 months and allows to perform full-contact prosthetics with maximum load on the residual limb end.
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.