Open Access
Review
Issue
SICOT-J
Volume 7, 2021
Article Number 66
Number of page(s) 9
Section Lower Limb
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2021066
Published online 31 December 2021
  1. Hosny GA (2020) Limb lengthening history, evolution, complications and current concepts. J Orthop Traumatol 21, 3. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Sabharwal S, Nelson SC, Sontich JK (2015) What’s new in limb lengthening and deformity correction. J Bone Jt Surg – Am 97, 1375–1384. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Rogers MJ, McFadyen I, Livingstone JA, et al. (2007) Computer Hexapod Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery (CHAOS) in the correction of long bone fracture and deformity. J Orthop Trauma 21, 337–342. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fadel M, Hosny G (2005) The Taylor spatial frame for deformity correction in the lower limbs. Int Orthop 29, 125–129. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Black SR, Kwon MS, Cherkashin AM, et al. (2015) Lengthening in congenital femoral deficiency. J Bone Jt Surg – Am 97, 1432–1440. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Kern T (2021) Managing bone defects in the femur with a motorized intramedullary bone transport nail – case review with follow-up. J Orthop Trauma 35(Suppl 4), S8–S12. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Rehan Youssef A, Gumaa M, Hosny GA (2021) Are internal lengthening devices effective and associated with less complications compared to other lengthening devices? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr Orthop B Epub ahead of print, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/BPB.0000000000000913. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. O’Farrell P, Barnard A-C, Birkholtz F (2018) The tibial bayonet method of wound closure. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr 13, 103–108. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Hernández-Irizarry R, Quinnan SM, Reid JS, et al. (2021) Intentional temporary limb deformation for closure of soft-tissue defects in open tibial fractures. J Orthop Trauma 35, e189–e194. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. SICOT PIONEER webinar (2021) Limb reconstruction in a resource-limited environment. In: SICOT PIONEER webinar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRaL-t1EBo0&t=4s. [Google Scholar]
  11. Christianson A, Howson CP, Modell B (2008) March of Dimes releases premature birth report card: Kentucky receives “F’’’ – KMA joins healthy babies coalition”. J Ky Med Assoc 106, 557–558. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Reynolds TA, Stewart B, Drewett I, et al. (2017) The impact of trauma care systems in low- and middle-income countries. Annu Rev Public Health 38, 507–532. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hosny GA (2005) Treatment of tibial hemimelia without amputation: preliminary report. J Pediatr Orthop B 14, 250–255. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ahmed F, Ahmed N, Briggs TWR, et al. (2017) Can reverse innovation catalyse better value health care? Lancet Glob Heal 5, e967–e968. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Carrillo LA, Segarra B, Sabharwal S (2020) Clinical observership opportunities in North America for International Orthopaedic Surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am 102, e60. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Carrillo LA, Sabharwal S (2021) Pediatric orthopaedic observerships in North America for International Surgeons: The visitor’s perspective. J Bone Joint Surg Am 103, e26. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Carrillo LA, Sabharwal S (2021) Pediatric orthopaedic observerships in North America for International Surgeons: Perceived barriers and opportunities for visitors and hosts. J Bone Joint Surg Am, Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34191778. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.21.00180. [Google Scholar]
  18. Whitaker AT, Gesheff MG, Jauregui JJ, Herzenberg JE (2016) Comparison of PACS and Bone Ninja mobile application for assessment of lower extremity limb length discrepancy and alignment. J Child Orthop 10, 439–443. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hambardzumyan V, Herzenberg J (2019) Bone Ninja app as a body image simulation tool for shared decision-making. J Limb Lengthening Reconstr 5, 105. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Khakharia S, Bigman D, Fragomen AT, et al. (2011) Comparison of PACS and hard-copy 51-inch radiographs for measuring leg length and deformity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469, 244–250. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hung AL-H, McClure PK, Franzone JM, et al. (2019) Bone Ninja mobile app for reverse planning method in internal limb deformity and lengthening surgery. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr 14, 72–76. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sabharwal S, Zhao C (2008) Assessment of lower limb alignment: Supine fluoroscopy compared with a standing full-length radiograph. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90, 43–51. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hankemeier S, Gosling T, Richter M, et al. (2006) Computer-assisted analysis of lower limb geometry: Higher intraobserver reliability compared to conventional method. Comput Aided Surg 11, 81–86. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Yaacob N (2021) How GIMP software helps in preoperative deformity planning. Int J Allied Heal Sci 5, 2280–2280. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sharma Y, Mugdum GG, Prabhakara A (2017) Rotational malalignment after closed intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures and its influence on functional outcome. Int J Res Med Sci 4, 2802–2808. [Google Scholar]
  26. Abood AA, Petruskevicius J, Vogt B, et al. (2020) The joint angle tool for intraoperative assessment of coronal alignment of the lower limb. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr 15, 169–173. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Krettek C, Miclau T, Grun O, et al. (1998) Intraoperative control of axes, rotation and length in femoral and tibial fractures technical note. Injury 29, 29–39. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Fuchs T, Stange R, Schmidmaier G, Raschke MJ (2011) The use of gentamicin-coated nails in the tibia: Preliminary results of a prospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131, 1419–1425. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Metsemakers W-J, Fragomen AT, Moriarty TF, et al. (2020) Evidence-based recommendations for local antimicrobial strategies and dead space management in fracture-related infection. J Orthop Trauma 34, 18–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Riel RU, Gladden PB (2010) A simple method for fashioning an antibiotic cement-coated interlocking intramedullary nail. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 39, 18–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Madanagopal SG, Seligson D, Roberts CS (2004) The antibiotic cement nail for infection after tibial nailing. Orthopedics 27, 709–712. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Thonse R, Conway J (2007) Antibiotic cement-coated interlocking nail for the treatment of infected nonunions and segmental bone defects. J Orthop Trauma 21, 258–268. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Guder WK, Hardes J, Nottrott M, et al. (2021) Highly cancellous titanium alloy (TiAl6V4) surfaces on three-dimensionally printed, custom-made intercalary tibia prostheses: Promising short- to intermediate-term results. J Pers Med 11, 351. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Steele JR, Kadakia RJ, Cunningham DJ, et al. (2020) Comparison of 3D printed spherical implants versus femoral head allografts for tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis. J Foot Ankle Surg 59, 1167–1170. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Tetsworth K, Woloszyk A, Glatt V (2019) 3D printed titanium cages combined with the Masquelet technique for the reconstruction of segmental femoral defects. OTA Int Open Access J Orthop Trauma 2, e016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Iobst CA, Frost MW, Rölfing JD, et al. (2021) Radiographs of 366 removed limb-lengthening nails reveal differences in bone abnormalities between different nail types. Bone Joint J 103-B, 1731–1735. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Hwang J, Sems S, Yuan B (2021) Trifocal tibial bone transport using a magnetic intramedullary nail: A case report. JBJS Case Connect 11, e20.01036. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Rachbauer A, Laufer A, Gosheger G, et al. (2021) Fibula-Assisted Segment Transport (FAST) for defect reconstruction after resection of tibial adamantinoma: Report of two treatments. Case Rep Orthop 2021, 5563931. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Accadbled F, Lemoine CT, Poinsot E, et al. (2019) Bone reconstruction after malignant tumour resection using a motorized lengthening intramedullary nail in adolescents: Preliminary results. J Child Orthop 13, 324. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kern T (2021) Managing bone defects in the femur with a motorized intramedullary bone transport nail – case review with follow-up. J Orthop Trauma 35, S8–S12. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Olesen UK, Nygaard T, Prince DE, et al. (2019) Plate-assisted bone segment transport with motorized lengthening nails and locking plates: A technique to treat femoral and tibial bone defects. JAAOS Glob Res Rev 3, e064. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sheridan GA, Falk DP, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR (2020) Motorized Internal Limb-Lengthening (MILL) techniques are superior to alternative limb-lengthening techniques. JBJS Open Access 5, e20.00115–e20.00115. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  43. Frost MW, Rahbek O, Traerup J, et al. (2021) Systematic review of complications with externally controlled motorized intramedullary bone lengthening nails (FITBONE and PRECICE) in 983 segments. Acta Orthop 92, 120–127. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rölfing JD, Kold S, Nygaard T, et al. (2021) Pain, osteolysis, and periosteal reaction are associated with the STRYDE limb lengthening nail: A nationwide cross-sectional study. Acta Orthop 92, 479–484. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Jellesen MS, Lomholt TN, Hansen RQ, et al. (2021) The STRYDE limb lengthening nail is susceptible to mechanically assisted crevice corrosion: an analysis of 23 retrieved implants. Acta Orthop 92, 621–627. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Mikužis M, Rahbek O, Christensen K, Kold S (2021) Complications common in motorized intramedullary bone transport for non-infected segmental defects: A retrospective review of 15 patients. Acta Orthop 92, 485–492. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Thaller PH, Frankenberg F, Degen N, et al. (2020) Complications and effectiveness of intramedullary limb lengthening: A matched pair analysis of two different lengthening nails. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr 15, 7–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lee DH, Kim S, Lee JW, et al. (2017) A comparison of the device-related complications of intramedullary lengthening nails using a new classification system. Biomed Res Int 2017, 8032510. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Iliadis AD, Wright J, Stoddart MT, et al. (2021) Early results from a single centre’s experience with the STRYDE nail. Bone Joint J 103-B, 1168–1172. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Frommer A, Roedl R, Gosheger G, et al. (2021) Focal osteolysis and corrosion at the junction of Precice Stryde intramedullary lengthening device. Bone Joint Res 10, 425–436. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Bue M, Bjarnason AÓ, Rölfing JD, et al. (2021) Prospective evaluation of pin site infections in 39 patients treated with external ring fixation. J Bone Jt Infect 6, 135–140. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ferreira N, Marais LC (2012) Prevention and management of external fixator pin track sepsis. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr 7, 67–72. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Xu Y-Q, Fan X-Y, He X-Q, Wen H-J (2021) Reconstruction of massive tibial bone and soft tissue defects by trifocal bone transport combined with soft tissue distraction: experience from 31 cases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 22, 34. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Marais LC, Ferreira N (2015) Bone transport through an induced membrane in the management of tibial bone defects resulting from chronic osteomyelitis. Strateg Trauma Limb Reconstr 10, 27–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.