ArticleJournal of wrist surgery2026
Corrective Osteotomy after Gradual Lengthening of the Forearm in Children/Adolescents.
Article in Journal of wrist 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We experienced a few unpredictable or unintentional outcomes after gradual lengthening (GL) through distractive osteogenesis (DO) in several etiologies. For deformed forearm bones, we performed an additional delayed corrective osteotomy (DCO). Here, we report the outcomes of two groups according to whether DCO was performed or not, due to unexpected outcomes. Materials and Methods: Among children/adolescents treated with GL between 2000 and 2015, we further inspected patients who had unpredictable or unintentional outcomes after GL (Group 1). The patients with satisfactory outcomes were designated as Group 2. Basic demographic data, radiologic findings, and clinical status were evaluated at the final follow-up. Results: Among 33 patients, 4 patients (12%) with unexpected outcomes were classified as Group 1 (5 lengthenings), and the other 29 patients were classified as Group 2. In comparison of parameters through DO, the mean latent periods, external fixator index, lengthened amount, and healing index were 6.20/6.28 days, 36.24/33.30 days/cm, 26.60/22.31 mm, and 46.40/43.34 days/cm, in Groups 1/2, respectively, without statistical significance. In DCO for 3 patients, the mean age at DCO was 13.7 years, and the mean time since GL was 35.7 months. At final follow-up, the mean bowing angle, distances between the dorsal surfaces of the radius and ulna, and ulnar variances were 4.30/13.79 degrees, 1.73/1.76 mm, and -1.00/- 0.24 mm, in Groups 1/2, respectively, without statistical significance except for the bowing angle. The final ranges of motion arcs were at least good levels without statistical significance in both groups. Additionally, the final visual analog scale (VAS) and disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) scores were all satisfactory, at 0.75 and 1.80/0.48 and 1.05 in Groups 1/2, respectively. Conclusion: GL of the forearm has been acknowledged as a useful option in several etiologies presenting with a malformed skeleton. Additionally, for uncommon and unpredictable outcomes after GL, a DCO would be a recommended solution. After the DCO, final outcomes are expected to be as satisfactory as the initial predicted outcomes. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic level IV.
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.