Femoral lengthening in young patients: An evidence-based comparison between motorized lengthening nails and external fixation

Table 1 Characteristics of the included publications

Ref.	Study design	Patient characteristics	Intervention	Comparator	Clinical outcomes
Black et al[14]	Comparative non-randomized retrospective	(1) Congenital short femur; (2) Skeletally mature children; (3) n = 29 (15 in FITBONE group and 14 in circular external fixation group); and (4) Age (mean): 18.2 yr in FITBONE and 15.8 yr in circular fixators	Motorized lengthening nails (FITBONE)	Circular external fixator	Length achieved, complications rates
Szymczuk et al[13]	Comparative non-randomized retrospective	(1) Congenital short femur; (2) n = 62 (30 in PRECICE group and 32 in LRS group); and (3) Age (mean): 15.4 yr in PRECICE and 9.4 yr in LRS	Magnetic lengthening nails (PRECICE)	LRS external fixator	ROM, length achieved HI and complication rates