ReviewDer Orthopade2020
[Treatment concepts for complications after resection and defect reconstruction of pelvic tumours].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2020. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pelvic resections in primary sarcomas : Surgical outcomes and survival analysis of 75 patients.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- [New reconstructive technique for massive zone 2+1 pelvic defects after oncological resection]Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPartial pelvic resection, internal hemipelvectomy or sacrectomy as a result of bone sarcoma is still challenging. No matter what kind of reconstruction is used, there is still a much higher rate of complications in pelvic surgery compared to sarcoma surgery of the long bones.
objectivesWe describe the most common complications in pelvic sarcoma surgery and specific complications related to the reconstruction method. Handling strategies for these complications are specified.
methodsWe performed a literature search and report our own experiences in the troubleshooting of pelvic surgery-related complications to gain an up-to-date overview of the state-of-the-art in management strategies.
resultsProspective randomized trials or meta-analyses on this topic are lacking. The literature search depicted that, besides local recurrence, deep infection after reconstruction is the most serious complication. An early revision with radical debridement has to be performed in order to save the reconstruction. In the case of a deep infection, the removal of all implants with a total loss of the reconstruction is often unavoidable. Therefore, an individualized risk-benefit analysis prior to surgery with respect to the type of reconstruction, or no reconstruction at all (hip transposition), together with the patient is advisable.
conclusionsComplications-especially infections-after hemipelvectomy or sacrectomy are common. In the case of infection, in some cases, an early revision is the only chance to prevent a reconstruction from explantation.
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.