ReviewDer Orthopade2019
[Current results of tumour endoprosthetics in adolescents and adults].
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Floating-embedded stems reduce tibial stress shielding in total knee revision arthroplasty.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Revision for Solid-Body Breakage of the 3D-Printed Implant Following Joint-Sparing Surgery: A Technical Note.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- The risk for complications and reoperations with the use of mega prostheses in bone reconstructions.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2021Observational
- Highly Cancellous Titanium Alloy (TiAlJournal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
- [Specific intraoperative and secondary complications of biological reconstructions following extralesional tumour resections of malignant bone tumours].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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe majority of osteoarticular defects after tumor resection in adolescent and adult patients are reconstructed using megaendoprosthetic implants. However, even infant and pre-teen children undergo reconstruction of defects using so-called growing prostheses with an increasing frequency.
objectivesPresentation of current techniques, outcomes and the most common complications of megaendoprosthetic reconstruction following tumour resection.
methodsSelective literature review and discussion of current concepts and knowledge in megaendoprosthetic reconstruction against personal experience and treatment strategies.
resultsMegaendoprosthetic reconstructions achieve good functional results and long-term limb salvage (ca. 90% of cases) in adolescent and adult patients. Still, periprosthetic infection and mechanical failure of joint components are among the most common complications observed. In infant and pre-teen children treated by reconstruction using a growing prosthesis, mandatory maintenance operations-in the process of elongating the implant-must also be considered when assessing complication risks.
conclusionsMegaendoprosthetic reconstructions of osteoarticular defects are a standard procedure in adolescent and adult patients. Despite a substantial complication rate, limb salvage is achieved in a majority of patients. When using growing prostheses in younger children, one needs to be aware of additional servicing procedures that occur independently of those arising from 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.