Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31127332›Full record

ReviewDer Orthopade2019

[Management of complications following tumor endoprosthetic replacement].

H Fritzsche, C Hofbauer, D Winkler, K P Günther, J Goronzy, J Lützner, W Kisel, K-D Schaser

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

H FritzscheUniversitätsCentrum für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland. hagen.fritzsche@uniklinikum-dresden.de.
C HofbauerUniversitätsCentrum für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
D WinklerUniversitätsCentrum für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
K P GüntherUniversitätsCentrum für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
J GoronzyUniversitätsCentrum für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
J LütznerUniversitätsCentrum für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
W KiselUniversitätsCentrum für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
K-D SchaserUniversitätsCentrum für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland.
Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychotherapie und Psychosomatik · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTumor endoprostheses are available as modular systems with which bone defects can be partially reconstructed, usually close to the joints, or as a total replacement of long tubular bones. As a result of continuously improved survival times, they are used with bone tumors, skeletal metastases and, increasingly, in revision arthroplasty.

objectivesPresentation of the most common complications of tumor endoprostheses and a description of their management, including treatment recommendations. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe current knowledge and our own experience of complication management with the use of megaprostheses are presented.

resultsThe number of tumor endoprostheses procedures is limited, so that a limited number of studies and classifications are available. Periprosthetic infections involving the soft tissues represent the most serious failure after perioperative dying and local recurrence of the tumor. Two-stage revision remains the gold standard in periprosthetic infection, even if one-stage revision is justifiable in selective indications. Periprosthetic infection and local recurrence is associated with the risk of secondary amputations. Mechanical failure can be treated more easily. Specific socket systems for proximal femoral replacement and attachment tubing allow for adequate soft tissue reconstruction, restoration of joint function, and minimize the risk of dislocation.

conclusionsIn comparison to primary arthroplasty, the risk of failure following tumor endoprosthetic replacement is increased but is basically controllable by revision surgery.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalFemurHumansProsthesis FailureReoperationTreatment OutcomeArthroplastyBone cancerInfectionProsthesis looseningRevision surgery

Identifiers

PMID31127332
OpenAlexW2945583666

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.