ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Management strategies for Docking Site refractures: a comparative analysis of 19 patient cases.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Recent advances regarding diagnosis and treatment of fracture-related infection].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of intramedullary nailing (IMN), percutaneous external plate fixation (PEPF), and re-applied external fixation (REF) in the treatment of refracture at the consolidated docking site following the removal of external fixation in patients with tibial defects who had previously undergone the Ilizarov bone transport technique.
methodsA retrospective review was performed on patients who received IMN, PEPF, or REF for refracture at the consolidated docking site subsequent to the removal of external fixation. A collection of data was made regarding the following parameters: age, gender, defect size, treatment methods, external fixation time (EFT), external fixation index (EFI), time of refracture (TOR) subsequent to fixation removal, and docking reunion time (DRT). Bone and functional outcomes were evaluated by the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov (ASAMI) scoring system and the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) questionnaire.
resultsThe study included 14 males and 5 females with an average age of 38.1 ± 8.9 years (range, 26 to 55 years). Etiologies included post-traumatic osteomyelitis in 11 cases and post-traumatic bone loss in 8 cases. The median bone defect was 5.11 ± 0.87 cm (range, 3.8 to 6.8 cm). Following docking site refracture, 6 cases were treated with IMN, 8 with PEPF, and 5 with REF. All patients achieved both satisfactory bone union and functional outcomes, and there was no significant difference in preoperative baseline data or postoperative outcomes among the three groups.
conclusionIMN, PEPF, and REF were all demonstrated favorable postoperative bone and functional outcomes, suggesting their reliability as treatment options for managing docking site refracture following external fixation removal.
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.