ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Comparative outcomes of Adam Frame and Ilizarov external fixator in pediatric lower limb deformity correction.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of the computer assisted octopod external fixator [Adam Frame (AF)] and the conventional Ilizarov external fixator (IEF) in pediatric and adolescent patients undergoing lower limb deformity correction and lengthening.
methodsThis retrospective comparative study included 48 patients (< 18 years, 69 extremities) treated between 2009 and 2015 at two tertiary orthopedic centers. Patients were divided into AF (25 patients, 35 extremities) and IEF (23 patients, 34 extremities) groups. Demographic data, deformity characteristics, correction parameters, indices, and complications were analyzed. Primary outcomes included correction angles, external fixation indices, and complication rates.
resultsThe mean age at surgery was 12.0 years in both groups (AF range 9-14, IEF range 5-14; p = 0.309). Sex distribution was also similar (AF: 14 males, 11 females; IEF: 13 males, 10 females; p = 1.000). Femoral involvement was more common in the IEF group, while tibial involvement was common in the AF group (p = 0.046). Sagittal plane deformities were more frequent in the AF group (34.29% vs. 5.88%; p = 0.005). The sagittal correction angle (p = 0.034) and daily lengthening rate (0.80 vs. 0.70 mm/day; p = 0.038) were slightly higher in the IEF group.
conclusionBoth AF and IEF are effective for pediatric deformity correction and lengthening. The IEF technique achieved greater sagittal correction and slightly faster lengthening. However, AF facilitates multiple adjustments, which can improve outcomes in complex tibial or sagittal-dominant deformities.
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.