Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33284356›Full record

ReviewDer Orthopade2021

[Indications for stump corrections].

K Glapa, R Hoffmann, B Greitemann

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Orthopade, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

K GlapaBG-Unfallklinik Frankfurt, Friedberger Landstraße 430, 60389, Frankfurt, Deutschland. kim.glapa@bgu-frankfurt.de.
R HoffmannBG-Unfallklinik Frankfurt, Friedberger Landstraße 430, 60389, Frankfurt, Deutschland.
B GreitemannKlinik Münsterland, Auf der Stöwwe 11, 49214, Bad Rothenfelde, Deutschland. greitemann@klinik-muensterland.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Problems in prosthetic fitting or mobility of amputated patients are often caused primarily by insufficient stump quality. To achieve better rehabilitation results and a higher quality of life it is mandatory that the physician treating the patient is able to diagnose stump problems and to indicate stump correction surgery. A skilled knowledge of amputation techniques, different levels of amputation, as well as of prosthetic fitting methods is needed. The physician has to have knowledge of the differences between phantom sensation, phantom pain and stump pain, as well as their possible causes. Especially with stump pain caused by stump problems revision surgery has to be considered with the patient. A well-done surgical stump correction should result in a better end-bearing capacity, less pain, improved rehabilitation potential and better life quality. Stump revision surgery should be indicated more often, and this type of surgery should be a standard procedure in every orthopaedic and trauma department.

Indexed as

Phantom LimbQuality of LifeAmputation StumpsAmputation, SurgicalHumansAmputationLife qualityPhantom painPhantom sensationRevision surgery

Identifiers

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.