ArticleMusculoskeletal surgery2026
Internal fixation through posterolateral approach versus Ilizarov external fixation for treatment of aseptic distal tibia nonunion: a comparative analysis.
Article in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDistal tibia nonunion poses a serious therapeutic challenge for orthopedic surgeons. Bone loss and soft tissue damage is relatively common. The aim of this study was to compare the healing rate and related functional outcomes between two retrospective series of distal tibia nonunion cases treated with internal fixation via the posterolateral approach and those managed with Ilizarov external fixation.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 47 affected by distal tibia nonunion. The subjects had undergone internal fixation with inter-tibiofibular graft through the posterolateral approach (Group A, n = 24) and Ilizarov method associated or not with bone transport procedures and osteotomies (Group B, n = 23). Results were assessed at a minimum 24 months after surgery. Consolidation rate, radiographic healing time of nonunion, the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS), the short form health survey (SF-12) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (pain, ability to work and treatment satisfaction) were compared between the groups. Complications and reoperations were also recorded.
resultsThe nonunion healing rate was 75% (18/24) in the group A and 91% in the group B (21/23)(p = 0.001). Consolidation was observed, on average, 5.7 months after surgery (range, 4-9) in the group A and 10.7 months in the B group (range, 5-24) (p = 0.001). All patients recovered have had good functional outcomes with no significant differences between the groups. At final follow-up, AOFAS scores in the A group were 74 (range 52-94), while in the B group it was 79 (range 57-100). Group A showed a better perception of mental health status (SF-12-MCS 46 vs. 45, p = 0.36) and a better satisfaction with the treatment received, but a worse perception of their physical health status (SF-12-PCS 49 vs. 50, p = 0.52) with a lower mean score on working ability.
conclusionDistal tibial nonunion can be successfully treated with the posterolateral approach, or external Ilizarov fixation. There are not significative outcomes differences when patients undergoing internal or external fixation. Although healing times are faster with internal fixation via the posterolateral approach, healing rates are higher with the Ilizarov method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40640639What 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.