ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2025
A Comparative Study of Taylor Spatial Frame and Monolateral External Fixator for Treating Infected Tibial Defects With Concomitant Soft Tissue Loss.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2025. 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.
- A retrospective comparative study of intraoperative fluoroscopy and postoperative radiography for measuring mounting parameters of the taylor spatial frame in tibial fractures.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Application of axial load-share ratio testing technology in the bone transport treatment of large segmental tibial bone defects.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Postoperative X-ray and CT measurement of mounting parameter accuracy for hexapod external fixator in treating tibial fractures: a retrospective study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe management of infectious tibial defects with concomitant soft tissue loss (ITD-STL) continues to pose substantial clinical challenges in orthopedic practice. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of the Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF) versus the Monolateral External Fixator (MEF) in achieving bone and soft tissue reconstruction for ITD-STL.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed on 49 consecutive patients with ITD-STL admitted between July 2010 and September 2022. The dataset included 25 patients who received treatment with the TSF, whereas 24 patients underwent treatment with the MEF. Demographic information, wound healing time, bone healing index, external fixation index, cost of hospitalization, and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Bone healing and functional recovery were assessed at the last follow-up (mean 18.8 months postoperatively; range 12-24 months) using the Association for the Study and Application of the Method of Ilizarov criteria (ASAMI) score. Then, statistical analysis such as independent samples t tests or chi-Square test was performed.
resultsThe wound healing time was (89.5 ± 30.6 days) in the TSF group and (86.2 ± 31.8 days) in the MEF group (p > 0.05). The bone healing index was (45.49 ± 11.99 d/cm) in the TSF group and (48.20 ± 13.01 d/cm) in the MEF group (p > 0.05). The external fixation index of the TSF group (52.4 ± 7.2 d/cm) was significantly lower than the MEF group (58.6 ± 10.3 d/cm) (p < 0.05). The total hospitalization cost was significantly higher in the TSF group compared to the MEF group (67.16 ± 2.46 thousand RMB vs. 42.67 ± 2.35 thousand RMB; p < 0.05). The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the TSF group (56%) than in the MEF group (75%). At the final follow-up, no significant differences in the ASAMI scores were observed between the two groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe use of TSF and MEF for ITD-STL can achieve bone reconstruction and soft tissue repair via bone transport, yielding a positive therapeutic effect. However, TSF treatment is a superior method, characterized by better biomechanical properties and fewer complications, particularly in the correction of postoperative tibial axial deviation. However, these benefits might be offset by the economic costs they could entail.
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.