Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30260860›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2018

What Is the Adverse Event Profile After Prophylactic Treatment of Femoral Shaft or Distal Femur Metastases?

Ryan P McLynn, Nathaniel T Ondeck, Jonathan N Grauer, Dieter M Lindskog

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Response rate specific to bone metastasis of various cancers for immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Importance of Metastatic Lesion Location and Subject-Specificity in the Determination of Femoral Fracture Risk.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Current Overview of Treatment for Metastatic Bone Disease.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2021
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ryan P McLynnR. P. McLynn, N. T. Ondeck, J. N. Grauer, D. M. Lindskog, Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA R. P. McLynn, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL, USA N. T. Ondeck, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Nathaniel T Ondeck
Jonathan N Grauer
Dieter M Lindskog
Vertex Pharmaceuticals (United States) · USBioVentures (United States) · USStryker (United States) · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProphylactic surgical treatment of the femur is commonly offered to patients with metastatic disease who have a high risk of impending pathologic fracture. Prophylactic fixation is associated with improved functional outcomes in appropriate patients selected based on established criteria, but the perioperative complication profile has received little attention. Given the substantial comorbidity in this population, it is important to characterize surgical risks for surgeons and patients to improve treatment decisions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the incidence of postoperative adverse events after prophylactic surgical stabilization of metastatic lesions of the femoral shaft or distal femur? (2) How does this complication profile compare with stabilization of pathologic fractures adjusted for differences in patient demographics and comorbidity?

methodsWe performed a retrospective study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. We identified patients undergoing prophylactic treatment of the femoral shaft or distal femur by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Patients undergoing treatment of a pathologic fracture were identified by CPT code for femur fracture fixation as well as an International Classification of Diseases code indicating neoplasm or pathologic fracture. We tracked adverse events, operative time, blood transfusion, hospital length of stay, and discharge to a facility within 30 days postoperatively. There were 332 patients included in the prophylactic treatment group and 288 patients in the pathologic fracture group. Patients in the prophylactic treatment group presented with greater body mass index (BMI), whereas the pathologic fracture group presented with a greater incidence of disseminated cancer. The odds of experiencing adverse events were initially compared between the two groups using bivariate logistic regression and then using multivariate regression controlling for age, sex, BMI, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and disseminated cancer causing marked physiological compromise per NSQIP guidelines.

resultsWith multivariate analysis controlling for age, sex, BMI, and ASA class, patients with pathologic fracture were more likely to experience any adverse event (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.29; p = 0.036), major adverse events (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.01-2.55; p = 0.043), death (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.07-3.38; p = 0.030), blood transfusion (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.08-2.27; p = 0.017), and hospital stay ≥ 9 days (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.05-2.19; p = 0.028) compared with patients undergoing prophylactic treatment. However, when additionally controlling for disseminated cancer, the only difference was that patients with pathologic fractures were more likely to receive a blood transfusion than were patients undergoing prophylactic fixation (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.12-2.36; p = 0.011).

conclusionsAfter controlling for differences in patient characteristics, prophylactic treatment of femoral metastases was associated with a decreased likelihood of blood transfusion and no differences in terms of the frequency of other adverse events. In the context of prior studies supporting the mechanical and functional outcomes of prophylactic treatment, the findings of this cohort suggest that the current guidelines have achieved a reasonable balance of morbidity in patients with femoral lesions and further support the current role of prophylactic treatment of impending femur fractures in appropriately selected patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

AgedBlood TransfusionDatabases, FactualDiaphysesFemaleFemoral FracturesFemurFracture FixationFractures, SpontaneousHumansLength of StayLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm Metastasis

Identifiers

PMID30260860
PMCPMC6259894
OpenAlexW2893849955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.