ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2026
Radiological Analysis of Bone Regeneration in Different Tibial Distraction Osteogenesis Zones and Parts.
Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 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
Background: This study aimed to explore whether asymmetrical bone regeneration is present in tibial distraction osteogenesis (DO) and analyze its etiologies. Methods: In total, 56 patients with tibial bone defects treated with DO were retrospectively analyzed (38 men and 18 women; average age, 47.3 years). Single proximal DO was conducted for 30 patients, single distal DO was conducted for 16 patients, and both proximal and distal DO were conducted for 10 patients. Bone regeneration, notably the healing time of the proximal and distal zones and different DO parts, was analyzed via radiological examination, and the possible etiologies were investigated. Results: There were 5 patients with poor regenerate formation (4 in the distal and 1 in the proximal), 3 patients with premature mineralization in the proximal, and 3 patients with DO zone fracture (1 in the proximal and 2 in the distal). The proximal healing time (11.8 ± 2.3 months) was shorter than the distal healing time (13.2 ± 2.5 months) ( Conclusions: Bone regeneration in different tibial DO zones and parts is asymmetrical, with faster regeneration in the proximal zone and posterior part and slower in the distal zone and anterior part, which may be due to differences in the local biological and external environments. These findings suggest that different distraction rates can be applied in different tibial regions, and more attention should be paid to protecting the anterior tibia.
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.