ReviewDer Orthopade2019
[Management of complications following tumor endoprosthetic replacement].
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Palliative care of proximal femur metastatic disease and osteolytic lesions: results following surgical and radiation treatment.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Management of complications of mega-implants following treatment of primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Innovation in proximal femoral replacement for oncology patients-A novel eggshell procedure.Journal of bone oncology · 2023Article
- Megaendoprostheses in the management of malignant tumors of the lower extremities-risk factors for revision surgery.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Article
- [Complication profile and revision concepts for megaprosthetic reconstruction following tumour resection at the hip].Der Orthopade · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.