ArticleMalaysian orthopaedic journal2025
Long-term Surgical Outcome of Congenital Pseudarthrosis of the Tibia.
Article in Malaysian orthopaedic journal, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Congenital pseudarthrosis of the tibia (CPT) is challenging to treat. The main issues following surgery are non-union, refracture, limb deformity and length discrepancy. We evaluated the surgical outcome of children operated in our centre. Materials and methods: A retrospective study of the outcome of primary bone union, refracture and success rate. Patients who had reached skeletal maturity were further evaluated for Johnston grading, residual limb deformity and limb length discrepancy (LLD). Results: Twelve patients (13 tibiae) were reviewed with an average follow-up of 14.5 years (range 3.1-24.0 years). Nine (69.2%) tibiae underwent intramedullary (IM) rodding; two (15.4%) were stabilised with the Ilizarov external fixator (IEF) + IM rod; and two other (15.4%) tibiae with the IEF only. Primary union was achieved in 5 (38.5%) tibiae, but refractures occurred in two tibiae (40%), lowering the overall success rate to 23.1%. Fixation with IM rodding alone led to a low primary union rate (22.2%) but combining it with IEF avoided refracture. Seven (53.8%) tibiae reached skeletal maturity and had a union at 12.6 years (7.5-17.4 years), after an average of 3 surgical procedures. Four (57.1%) were Johnston Grade I, and 3 (42.9%) were Grade II. Four (57.1%) tibiae had residual tibial valgus, two (28.6%) tibial varus, four (57.1%) procurvatum and one (14.3%) recurvatum. The average LLD was 3.9cm (2-10cm). Conclusion: Intramedullary rodding alone is ineffective for producing a bony union but combining it with IEF minimise the refracture rate. The chances of union increased with age, but residual deformity and shortening are an ongoing challenge.
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.