ReviewDer Orthopade2019
[Endoprosthetic replacement following intercalary resection].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- [Research progress of cementless intercalary prosthesis stem].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoprosthetic replacement is a valuable treatment option following intercalary resection of bone tumours in the diaphysis.
objectivesTo identify indication, operative technique, implants currently available, literature results and alternative procedures for the alloplastic reconstruction of segmental bone defects. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis review article summarizes the authors' own experiences and relevant clinical studies focussing on this topic.
resultsAccording to the literature, 10-year-survival rates of intercalary endoprostheses range between 64 and 80%. Yet, comparisons between different publications are difficult due to the limited number of cases, different implants, follow-up periods and the heterogeneous patient populations. Biological alternatives for reconstruction are autologous bone transplantation, distraction osteogenesis and bone transport, allogenic bone transplantation, and the induced membrane technique. Innovative tissue engineering approaches are still limited to preclinical testing.
conclusionsShort- to mid-term results for segmental endoprostheses following intercalary resections are satisfactory and may be regarded as superior to those of biological reconstructions due to the immediate full weight-bearing capability. However, they are mainly applied for elderly patients and in palliative situations because of potential long-term complications.
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.