ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2016
Impacts of Tumor Location, Nature and Bone Destruction of Extremity Osteosarcoma on Selection of Limb Salvage Operative Procedure.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and risk factors of distant metastasis among Chinese osteosarcoma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- Contribution of Sonication to the Identification of Megaprosthesis Infection in Culture Negative Oncologic Patient.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2023Article
- Surgical Advances in Osteosarcoma.Cancers · 2021Review
- Skeletal impact of 17β-estradiol in T cell-deficient mice: age-dependent bone effects and osteosarcoma formation.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2020Article
- Efficacy of a Modified Scoring System to Facilitate Surgical Decision-making for Diaphyseal Malignancies: When is Devitalized Tumor-bearing Autograft of Value?Orthopaedic surgery · 2019Article
- Outcome of segmental prosthesis reconstruction for diaphyseal bone tumors: a multi-center retrospective study.BMC cancer · 2019Article
- Limb salvage surgery with joint preservation for malignant humeral bone tumors: operative procedures and clinical application.BMC surgery · 2019Article
- The current status of MRI in the pre-operative assessment of intramedullary conventional appendicular osteosarcoma.Skeletal radiology · 2019Review
- Treatment of osteosarcoma around the knee in skeletally immature patients.Oncology letters · 2017Article
- Primary Osteosarcoma in Patients Over 75 Years of Age: A Case Series and Literature Review.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo study the impacts of tumor location, nature and extent of bone destruction on selection of operative protocol for extremity osteosarcoma (OS).
methodsThe medical records of 201 patients with extremity OS treated in our institute from December 1999 to June 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Ninety eligible patients (56 males and 34 females) of average age 20 ± 11 years (range, 4-40 years) were enrolled. Tumor locations were categorized as diaphyseal (4; diaphysis group) or juxta-articular (86); the latter being subclassified as with (51, type III, epiphysis group) or without invasion beyond the epiphyseal line or plate (35, type I and II, metaphysis group) according to MRI images. Tumor nature (osteogenic, 51; osteolytic, 39) was determined radiologically. Extent of bone destruction was quantitated according to Mirel's scoring system to obtain an "invasion score". Regular postoperative follow-up included physical examination and imaging evaluation.
resultsFifty-four patients underwent biological reconstruction and 36 mechanical reconstruction. The mean follow-up duration was 51 months (range, 6-176 months, including four deaths within 12 months). Biological reconstruction was performed more frequently in the diaphysis and metaphysis groups (31/39, 79.5%) than mechanical reconstruction (8/39, 20.5%, P < 0.05). Biological reconstruction and articular preservation were associated with more satisfactory limb function (MSTS scores: 25.0 ± 3.3 and 25.1 ± 3.6) than mechanical reconstruction and articular resection (MSTS scores: 23.4 ± 3.7 and 23.1 ± 3.4, P < 0.05). Reconstruction methods and articular preservation had no relationship with overall or tumor-free survival (P > 0.05). Osteolytic lesions were associated with more extensive bone destruction than osteogenic lesions according to invasion scores (P < 0.05). Following biological reconstruction, high invasion scores (>8) had a 13.5-fold risk of fracture compared with low scores (≤8) (P < 0.05). Twenty-one subjects had recurrences, 30 metastases and 26 died. Postoperative complications included infection (6), fracture (10), and prosthesis loosening (4). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated 5- and 10-year survival rates of 68.9% and 62.8%, respectively, and 5- and 10-year tumor-free survival rates of 66.7% and 57.8%, respectively.
conclusionSelection of limb salvage operative protocol for extremity OS should rely on tumor location, nature and extent of bone destruction. Regardless of tumor site, mechanical reconstruction is indicated for tumors with high invasion scores (>8), whereas biological reconstruction is preferred for those with low invasion scores (≤8). Tumors sparing the epiphyseal line or plate are ideal candidates for articular preservation.
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.