ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Comparison of the clinical outcomes between the modified free musculocutaneous flap combined with delayed bone reconstruction technique and the free fasciocutaneous flap combined with Masquelet technique for post-traumatic osteomyelitis of the lower leg.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. 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.
- Patient-Specific Virtual Surgical Planning and In-House CAD-/CAM-Guided Vascularized Bone Flaps for Salvage Extremity Reconstruction: A Case Series.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePost-traumatic osteomyelitis of the lower leg commonly involves severe infectious bone and soft tissue defects, posing significant reconstructive challenges and a high risk of infection recurrence. While both the free fasciocutaneous flap with Masquelet technique (FFCMT) and the modified free musculocutaneous flap with delayed bone reconstruction (MMDRT) have been described, their comparative efficacy remains unelucidated. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of FFCMT and MMDRT in managing such complex defects.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 45 patients with post-traumatic osteomyelitis of the lower leg who received MMDRT (22 cases) and FFCMT (23 cases) treatments at our hospital from January 2016 to August 2023. The demographic data, underlying diseases, ASA, bone and soft tissue defects, surgical data, and postoperative follow-up results of the two groups were documented for analysis. By comparing the bone union time, infection control efficiency, and postoperative complications of the patients in the two groups, the efficacy differences of the two surgical methods were systematically evaluated.
resultsThe MMDRT group showed significant superiority over the FFCMT group in terms of bone union time (MMDRT:13.06 ± 1.14 months; FFCMT: 14.35 ± 1.01 months), the time for white blood cell and C-reactive protein indicators to return to normal, and the incidence of fracture-related complications (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the number of debridement procedures, operation time, blood loss, flap complications, and the final follow-up tibial healing RUST score and ankle AOFAS score (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe successful management of post-traumatic osteomyelitis hinges on effective infection control, coverage with well-vascularized tissue, and reconstruction of bone defects. While both MMDRT and FFCMT are effective for tibial osteomyelitis, MMDRT simplifies the bone grafting process, facilitating earlier infection control and shortening the fracture healing time.
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.