ArticleOTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma2026
Balanced cable bone transport of the tibia using automated motorized struts.
Article in OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Determine if automated struts can successfully power a balanced cable transport (BCT) during tibial bone transport and thus benefit from the advantages of automation. Design: Retrospective observational case series. Setting: Level 1 trauma center. Patients/Participants: A retrospective analysis of 7 tibial BCTs using automated struts was performed with an average defect size of 102 mm. Outcomes: Union rate, complications, external fixation index, bone healing index, and mechanical alignment. Results: The average bone healing index was found to be 21.9 days/cm in bifocal BCT and 13.7 days/cm in trifocal BCT. Automated struts successfully powered 7 BCTs but were not without complications. Four patients had strut malfunctions necessitating unscheduled return to clinic. Other complications not secondary to the struts included pin tract infections (n = 4) and unplanned return to the operating room (n = 2, docking site nonunion and revision ankle arthrodesis). Conclusions: Automated struts powering BCT is feasible but not without complications. This treatment strategy combines the advantages of automation with the advantages of BCT. Incorporating automation into these complex constructs will allow for ease of use for patient and caregiver during the long process of bone transport, theoretically decrease noncompliance, which otherwise can cause severe complications, and increased segmentation, which may improve quality of regenerate bone formation. Level of Evidence: Level 4.
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.