ArticleScientific reports2020
Radiographic and clinical assessment of unidirectional porous hydroxyapatite to treat benign bone tumors.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiographic and Clinical Assessment of Unidirectional Porous Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate to Treat Benign Bone Tumors.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Clinical Application of Unidirectional Porous Hydroxyapatite to Bone Tumor Surgery and Other Orthopedic Surgery.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Unidirectional porous beta-tricalcium phosphate and hydroxyapatite artificial bone: a review of experimental evaluations and clinical applications.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unidirectional porous hydroxyapatite (UDPHAp) was developed as an excellent scaffold with unidirectional pores oriented in the horizontal direction with interpore connections. The purpose of this study was to assess radiographic changes and clinical outcomes and complications following UDPHAp implantation to treat benign bone tumors. We retrospectively analyzed 44 patients treated with intralesional resection and UDPHAp implantation for benign bone tumors between 2010 and 2015. Clinical and radiographic findings were evaluated postoperatively at regular follow-up visits. The mean follow-up was 49 months. Radiographic changes were classified into five stages based on bone formation in the implanted UDPHAp according to Tamai's classification. All patients showed excellent bone formation inside and around implanted UDPHAp. Absorption of UDPHAp and bone marrow cavity remodeling was identified in 20 patients at a mean of 17 months postoperatively, and was significantly more common in young patients. Preoperative cortical thinning was completely regenerated in 26 of 31 patients on average 10 months after surgery. There were no cases of delayed wound healing, postoperative infection, or allergic reaction related to implanted UDPHAp. UDPHAp is a useful bone-filling substitute for treating benign bone tumor, and the use of this material has a low complication rate.
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.