ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2016
Short- to long-term follow-up of total femoral replacement in non-oncologic patients.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total femur replacement, indications for the procedure and its complications: a systematic review.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Total femur replacement in revision arthroplasty for non-oncologic patients: a systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Pooled it
- Total Femoral Replacement as a Salvage Procedure for a Periprosthetic Fracture After Multiple Previous Femoral Reconstructions: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2026Article
- Total femoral replacement for severe femoral bone loss in non-oncologic patients: high complication rates but acceptable functional outcomes.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Observational
- Optimizing Outcomes in Total Femur Replacement: Complications, Management Strategies, and Lessons Learned.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Single-Institution Experience With Nononcologic Total Femoral Replacement.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Article
- Principles of Defect Reconstruction After Wide Resection of Primary Malignant Bone Tumors of the Calcaneus: A Contemporary Review.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2024Review
- Characteristics and Epidemiology of Megaprostheses Infections: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Three-dimensional design custom-made uncemented stem for revision of cemented distal femoral endoprosthesis due to aseptic loosening.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Megaprosthesis in Non-Oncologic Settings-A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The Performances of Conventional Titanium and Silver-Coated Megaprostheses in Non-oncological and Post-oncological Patients: An Analysis of Infection Failures in 142 Patients.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2022Article
- Modular Total Femur Replacement for Staged Total Femur Replacement.Arthroplasty today · 2021Article
- Different outcomes after proximal femoral replacement in oncologic and failed revision arthroplasty patients - a retrospective cohort study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Modular megaprostheses in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2021Article
- Total Femoral Replacement- A Case Report.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2021Article
- A modified technique of mega prosthesis revision on non-neoplastic patient: Case report.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2020Article
- Humeral head necrosis associated to shaft non-union with massive bone loss: a case report.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020Article
- Survivorship of Megaprostheses in Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty for Septic and Aseptic Indications: A Retrospective, Multicenter Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up.Arthroplasty today · 2020Article
- Allogenic bone graft for femoral defect augmentation in hip revision arthroplasty: A case series.Orthopedic reviews · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompromised bone stock and heavily impaired structural integrity after multiple endoprosthetic revision surgeries can lead to a comparable condition as encountered in musculoskeletal tumor surgery. Total femoral replacement (TFR) can restore femoral integrity and allow patients to resume ambulation. Even though several authors reported their results of TFR, so far many questions are still on debate: Which patients are at risk to experience low functional outcome? Do complications and clinical outcome after TFR depend on the indication for the surgery (e.g. periprosthetic fractures or aseptic loosening) or the age of the patients? The purpose of the present study was to compare complication rates after TFR performed with modular total femur prosthesis MML (Fa. ESKA/Orthodynamics) in patients without malignant disease.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review and functional investigation of patients treated with a TFR for non-oncologic conditions from 1995 to 2015 and a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Complications were recorded according to the Henderson-Classification; outcome was evaluated with established clinical scores. The indication for TFR was periprosthetic fracture (Group A, n = 11) or aseptic loosening (Group B, n = 7) with massive bone defect of the femur deemed unsuitable for conventional arthroplastic or biologic reconstruction.
resultsEighteen patients matched the inclusion criteria and could be investigated clinically after a mean follow-up of 80 months (range: 28-132). Before TFA, all patients had previously undergone multiple operations (range: 1-8). The overall failure rate for any reason was 72% (n = 13/18), leading to a total of 37 surgical revisions with total exchange of TFR in 22% (n = 4/18). Most common failure mechanism was Type I (soft tissue), followed by Type IV (infection) and Type III (mechanical failure). According to Enneking's functional evaluation method (MSTS-Score), the function ranged from 1 to 15 with a mean of 10 ± 4 out of 30.
conclusionTFR is a salvage procedure to restore mechanical integrity and regain functional ability after extensive femoral bone loss. Outcome of the patients in the present study did mainly depend on the age at reconstruction and not on the indication for TFR.
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.