ArticleZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery2026
[Comparison between Taylor spatial frame and Ilizarov circular frame in treatment of large-segment tibial bone defect].
Article in Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive 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
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of bone transport using the Taylor spatial frame (TSF) versus the Ilizarov circular frame (ICF) in the treatment of long-segment tibial bone defects. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of 44 patients with large-segment tibial bone defects who met the selection criteria and received surgical treatment between January 2011 and December 2024. The patients were divided into the TSF group (25 cases) and the ICF group (19 cases) according to different external fixation methods. There was no significant difference in baseline data including gender, age, bone defect length, defect etiology, and number of previous operations between the two groups ( Results: All patients in both groups successfully completed the operation. The TSF group had a significantly shorter operation time than the ICF group ( Conclusion: Both TSF and ICF bone transport techniques can effectively repair large-segment tibial bone defects and achieve reliable bone healing and limb functional recovery. Compared with ICF, TSF has the advantages of shorter operation time, higher postoperative three-dimensional orthopedic accuracy, and better recovery of limb alignment.
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.