Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38997680›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024

Effectiveness of synthetic versus autologous bone grafts in foot and ankle surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Amir Human Hoveidaei, Amirhossein Ghaseminejad-Raeini, Sina Esmaeili, Amirmohammad Sharafi, Ali Ghaderi, Kasra Pirahesh, Alireza Azarboo, Basilia Onyinyechukwu Nwankwo, Janet D Conway

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Biocompatible Mesoporous Materials for Bone Therapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  7. 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

9 authors.

Amir Human HoveidaeiSports Medicine Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. hoveidaei.a.h@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4607-354X
Amirhossein Ghaseminejad-RaeiniSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4322-0236
Sina EsmaeiliSina University Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5335-3235
Amirmohammad SharafiSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ali GhaderiSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Kasra PiraheshSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0295-4548
Alireza AzarbooSchool of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Basilia Onyinyechukwu NwankwoInternational Center for Limb Lengthening, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Janet D ConwayInternational Center for Limb Lengthening, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAll orthopaedic procedures, comprising foot and ankle surgeries, seemed to show a positive trend, recently. Bone grafts are commonly employed to fix bone abnormalities resulting from trauma, disease, or other medical conditions. This study specifically focuses on reviewing the safety and efficacy of various bone substitutes used exclusively in foot and ankle surgeries, comparing them to autologous bone grafts.

methodsThe systematic search involved scanning electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane online library, and Web of Science, employing terms like 'Bone substitute,' 'synthetic bone graft,' 'Autograft,' and 'Ankle joint.' Inclusion criteria encompassed RCTs, case-control studies, and prospective/retrospective cohorts exploring different bone substitutes in foot and ankle surgeries. Meta-analysis was performed using R software, integrating odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Cochrane's Q test assessed heterogeneity.

resultsThis systematic review analyzed 8 articles involving a total of 894 patients. Out of these, 497 patients received synthetic bone grafts, while 397 patients received autologous bone grafts. Arthrodesis surgery was performed in five studies, and three studies used open reduction techniques. Among the synthetic bone grafts, three studies utilized a combination of recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor BB homodimer (rhPDGF-BB) and beta-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) collagen, while four studies used hydroxyapatite compounds. One study did not provide details in this regard. The meta-analysis revealed similar findings in the occurrence of complications, as well as in both radiological and clinical evaluations, when contrasting autografts with synthetic bone grafts.

conclusionSynthetic bone grafts show promise in achieving comparable outcomes in radiological, clinical, and quality-of-life aspects with fewer complications. However, additional research is necessary to identify the best scenarios for their use and to thoroughly confirm their effectiveness. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Indexed as

Bone SubstitutesBone TransplantationTransplantation, AutologousAnkleAnkle JointFootHumansTreatment OutcomeBone SubstitutesAnkle surgeryArthrodesisAutograft alternativeBone graftBone substituteSynthetic bone graft

Identifiers

PMID38997680
PMCPMC11245794

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.