ArticleDer Orthopade2015
[Tumor prostheses : Important in modern revision arthroplasty].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Megaendoprostheses in the management of malignant tumors of the lower extremities-risk factors for revision surgery.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to demographic aging, an increasing number of revision arthroplasty procedures is expected during upcoming years. While the use of a megaprosthesis for bone reconstruction after tumor resection is gold standard, this type of prosthesis still meets with reservation in the field of revision arthroplasty because of numerous risk factors.
objectivesThe purpose of this article is to present the importance of modular megaprostheses in revision arthroplasty, taking into consideration the risks of periprosthetic infection, aseptic loosening, material failure, and hip dislocation.
resultsBecause of improvements in the field of megaprostheses during the last 30 years, the risks after implantation of this type of prosthesis have significantly decreased. The risk of periprosthetic infection has been reduced about 1/3 by the use of silver surface coating. Improvements in stem design, cement technique, and the additional use of locking screws have minimized the risk of aseptic loosening. Improvements in material composition have reduced the risk of material failure. The risk of hip dislocation could also be minimized by careful tissue preparation and appropriate suture technique.
conclusionThere is no need for the conservative use of megaprostheses in revision arthroplasty. There are many benefits in the use of megaprostheses in multimorbid patients (i.e., reduced operating time, the possibility of early full weight bearing, and a reduced risk of periprosthetic infection by the use of silver surface coating) instead of complex bone reconstruction during revision arthroplasty.
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.