ReviewDer Orthopade2020
[Complication profile and revision concepts for megaprosthetic reconstruction following tumour resection at the hip].
Review in Der Orthopade, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTumourous destruction of the periacetabular region and the proximal femur is a typical consequence of either primary malignant bone tumour manifestation or skeletal metastatic diseases. Pathological fractures of the proximal femur and periacetabular regions due to primary manifestation or metastatic disorders are frequent.
objectivesPresentation of the most common complications of tumour endoprostheses at the hip and a description of management strategies, including therapeutic recommendations and concepts for complication avoidance. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe current knowledge and our own experience of complication management with the use of megaprostheses around the hip are presented.
resultsCompared to elective/primary total hip arthroplasty, megaprosthetic reconstructions following tumour resections have an increased rate of postoperative deep infections, dislocations, incidence of pathological and periprosthetic fractures and of deep vein thrombosis. The postoperative mortality and local tumour recurrence along with deep infections represent the most serious complications.
conclusionsIn comparison to primary arthroplasty, the risk of failure and complications following tumour-endoprosthetic replacement is increased. Precise surgical planning and careful selection and preoperative preparation of suitable patients should be performed in close interdisciplinary cooperation with final decision-making on an interdisciplinary tumour board. Wide resection and advanced reconstruction, as well as complicated palliative stabilization due to malignant bone tumour growth around the hip joint should be performed in musculoskeletal tumour centres with profound expertise in osteosynthetic and endoprosthetic reconstruction and consecutive complication management of the pelvis and the proximal femur.
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.