ArticleStrategies in trauma and limb reconstruction
Motorised Intramedullary Bone Transport: A Scoping Review.
Article 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Segmental bone defects present a significant reconstructive challenge in orthopaedic surgery and are traditionally reconstructed using external fixation. The advent of motorised intramedullary bone transport nails (BTNs) aims to mitigate complications associated with external fixation. Despite the theoretical advantages, the clinical efficacy and complication profile of BTNs remain unclear. This scoping review evaluates the current literature on the use of BTNs in segmental bone defect reconstruction. Methodology: A search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Studies published between 2010 and 2024 that reported on motorised BTNs were included. Data extraction focused on patient demographics, defect characteristics, treatment strategies, complications, consolidation indices, and functional outcomes. Due to study heterogeneity, results were synthesised descriptively. Results: Fifteen studies were included, comprising three retrospective cohorts, seven case series, and five case reports, totalling 61 patients. Most defects occurred in the femur (60.7%), with trauma (39.3%) as the most common aetiology. The mean defect size was 7.1 cm (range: 0.5-17 cm). The overall union rate was 92.3%, with a mean bone healing index (BHI) of 51.36 days/cm. A total complication incidence of 106.6% was reported, reflecting multiple complications in some patients, with device-related failures (22%), joint contractures (14%), and delayed union (9%) as common occurrences. While BTNs eliminate external fixation-associated morbidity, they introduce unique challenges such as mechanical failures and prolonged periods of non-weight-bearing. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were rarely assessed, with only two studies reporting functional scores. Conclusions: Motorised intramedullary bone transport offers a promising alternative to external fixation, particularly for femoral defects. However, BTNs introduce device-specific complications and remain costly and technically demanding. Current evidence is limited to small case series with heterogeneous methodologies, precluding definitive conclusions on superiority over external fixation. Future research should focus on multi-centre comparative studies with standardised outcome measures to establish the optimal role of BTNs in limb reconstruction.
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.