ReviewStrategies in trauma and limb reconstruction
Comparison of Techniques Utilising External Fixation to Motorised Intramedullary Nails in the Treatment of Lower Limb Discrepancy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical outcomes of motorised lengthening intramedullary nails (MLNs) with techniques utilising external frames for lower limb discrepancy (LLD) treatment. Materials and methods: The systematic review was conducted under the guidance of PRISMA guidelines and reported to the PROSPERO registry in December 2022. Out of 3,422 articles, only six eligible studies were identified from PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE, meeting inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was conducted for total lengthening, time to union, and incidence of reoperations. Results: Pooled MD for total lengthening was -0.50 (95% CI: -0.93, -0.08), showing a slightly better outcome (statistically significant) for the comparison treatment. For time to union, pooled MD was -0.12 (95% CI: -1.38, 1.14), indicating no statistically significant difference between the treatments. Lastly, with the reoperation rates, the overall log odds ratio (OR) was 0.91 in favour of MLN and statistically significant (95% CI: -1.77, -0.04). Conclusion: This study suggests that techniques that incorporate external fixators have a greater potential for the amount of total lengthening over the use of motorised lengthening MLN but may increase complications requiring reoperation. There is no significant difference in time to union. Clinical significance: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis comparing MLN with other techniques utilising external frames. Finite conclusions cannot be drawn owing to the use of a small number of observational studies with relatively small numbers in each study. Further studies should be developed to support the suggested conclusions, and this study may serve as a foundation for future studies. How to cite this article: Bocheński W, Luba G, Manca F,
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.