ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Secondary deformity following paediatric tibial lengthening with circular fixators.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the incidence, magnitude, and risk factors for secondary angular deformity after tibial lengthening with a circular external fixator in skeletally immature patients. We hypothesized that younger age and low bone healing index would predispose to late valgus drift.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted on 98 children who underwent tibial lengthening using a circular external fixator, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Radiographic assessment included full-length standing AP radiographs and lateral tibial views obtained preoperatively, at fixator removal, six months post-removal, and at final follow-up. Measured parameters included the mechanical Medial Proximal Tibial Angle, Center of Rotation of Angulation, and Posterior Proximal Tibial Angle. Risk factors for secondary deformity were analyzed using independent T test, Chi-Square test, Pearson test and multivariate logistic regression.
resultsA valgus deformity greater than 3° developed in 36 patients (37%), primarily within the first six months after frame removal. Younger age at surgery (p = 0.017) and a bone healing index ≤ 40 days/cm (OR 2.3; p = 0.049) were significantly associated with valgus drift. A progressive valgus shift in CORA correlated with a shorter consolidation index (p = 0.021). Sagittal alignment showed a small but significant early decrease.
conclusionSecondary valgus deformity is a common and under-recognized complication following tibial lengthening with a circular external fixator in skeletally immature patients. Younger age at surgery and low bone healing index are the principal risk factors for this late angular drift. Furthermore, they question the efficacy of intentional frontal overcorrection to reliably prevent secondary deformity and suggest that additional corrective strategies may be required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41731236What 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.