ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Outcome of limb lengthening as a treatment for shortening following successful replantation of traumatic leg amputation: experience with 21 patients.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of limb lengthening based on the Ilizarov technique in the treatment of limb shortening following successful replantation of traumatic lower leg amputation. Methods: The clinical records and consecutive x-ray photographs of patients with limb shortening deformities following successful replantation of traumatic lower leg amputation treated by limb lengthening using an external fixator were analyzed retrospectively, from January 2012 to December 2022. The demographic data, initial injury, previous treatment, and postoperative data were collected. Paley classification was applied to assess the bone and functional outcomes. The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS), visual analog scale (VAS), and 36-item Short Form Health Survey of life quality (SF-36) were used to evaluate and compare the results of the affected limbs. Results: A total of 21 patients with a mean age of 42.71 ± 7.96 years, consisting of 17 males (80.9%) and 4 females (19.1%), were successfully treated by limb lengthening using an external fixator. The mean length of limb shortening after limb replantation is 9.93 ± 2.88 cm. The mean external fixation time of this cohort was 16 ± 5.27 months, with a mean external fixation index of 1.59 ± 0.14 month/cm. In bone results, there were 14 cases in excellent, and 6 cases in good, with an excellent and good rate of 95.2%. In functional results, there were 15 cases of excellent, and 5 cases of good, with an excellent and good rate of 95.2%. The knee joint displayed an average over-extension range of motion of 2.9 ± 0.85° (0°-5°), with an average flexion range of 114.7 ± 3.05° (105°-140°). Among the patients, except for the 2 cases of tenodesis, the remaining individuals exhibited an average plantar flexion of 23.2 ± 3.34° (10°-40°) and an average dorsiflexion of 15.1 ± 3.44° (10°-25°). The outcomes of plantar sensation recovery were as follows: 6 cases were classified as S3 Conclusion: Limb lengthening based on the Ilizarov technique was a safe and effective method for treating shortening following successful replantation of traumatic lower leg amputation, and it could yield satisfactory postoperative bone and functional results. The long treatment period usually associated with this method increases the risk of complications, necessitating good patient compliance with meticulous postoperative management and follow-up guidance to minimize these risks.
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.