ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Orthopaedics versus surgery: two rehabilitation models during the First World War.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
Abstract
purposeThis study analyses the opposing rehabilitation paradigms of Božidar Špišić and Miroslav Čačković in Croatia during the First World War. It examines how differing concepts of the body, technology, and labour shaped professional positioning and authority over amputee rehabilitation.
methodsThe paper employs a historical-comparative and discursive analysis of contemporary medical literature, focusing on Čačković's 1916 article Work Prosthesis or Working Stump?. It also evaluates the use of medical photography as an instrument of professional rhetoric.
resultsThe debate highlighted two epistemologically opposed models: Špišić's orthopaedic mechanical-prosthetic approach, prioritizing standardization, early prosthetics, and industrial resocialization; and Čačković's biological-adaptive model, emphasizing stump adaptation, sensory feedback, and bodily autonomy from mechanical devices. While Špišić used visual series to justify orthopaedics' institutional autonomy, Čačković utilized a single case study to challenge dominant prosthetic enthusiasm.
conclusionThe polemic reflected a conceptual conflict between traditional surgery and emerging orthopaedics over rehabilitation authority. Institutionally, Špišić's model prevailed, establishing orthopaedics as an independent academic specialty in Croatia. Biomechanically, both paradigms anticipated modern rehabilitation, which combines a neurologically active body with advanced prosthetics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42771045What 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.