Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34040979›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2021

Intercalary reconstruction following resection of diaphyseal bone tumors: A systematic review.

Costantino Errani, Shinji Tsukamoto, Nusaibah Almunhaisen, Andreas Mavrogenis, Davide Donati

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Pedicled Fibula Flap for Lower Limb Reconstruction.Strategies in trauma and limb reconstruction
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Costantino ErraniOrthopaedic Service, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Shinji TsukamotoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan.
Nusaibah AlmunhaisenOrthopaedic Service, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Andreas MavrogenisFirst Department of Orthopaedics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.
Davide DonatiOrthopaedic Service, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli · ITNara Medical University · JPNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe options for the reconstruction of diaphyseal defects following the resection of bone tumors include biological or prosthetic implants. The purpose of our study was to evaluate different types of intercalary reconstruction techniques, including massive bone allograft, extracorporeal devitalized autograft, vascularized free fibula, and modular prosthesis.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of articles using the terms diaphyseal bone tumor and intercalary reconstruction. All the studies reporting the non-oncological complications such as infection, nonunion and fracture of the intercalary reconstructions were included. We excluded articles published before 2000 or did not involve humans in the study. Case reports, reviews, technique notes and opinion articles were also excluded based on the abstracts. Thirty-three articles included in this review were then studied to evaluate failure rates, complications and functional outcome of different surgical intercalary reconstruction techniques.

resultsNonunion rates of allograft ranged 6%-43%, while aseptic loosening rates of modular prosthesis ranged 0%-33%. Nonunion rates of allograft alone and allograft with a vascularized fibula graft ranged 6%-43% and 0%-33%, respectively. Fracture rates of allograft alone and allograft with a vascularized fibula graft ranged 7%-45% and 0%-44%, respectively. Infection rates of allograft alone and allograft with a vascularized fibula graft ranged 0%-28% and 0%-17%, respectively. All of the allograft (range: 67%-92%), extracorporeal devitalized autograft including irradiation (87%), autoclaving (70%), pasteurization (88%), low-heat (90%) or freezing with liquid nitrogen (90%), and modular prosthesis (range: 77%-93%) had similar Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional scores. Addition of a vascularized fibula graft to allograft did not affect functional outcome [allograft with a vascularized fibula graft (range: 86%-94%) vs. allograft alone (range: 67%-92%)].

conclusionAseptic loosening rates of modular prosthesis seem to be less than nonunion rates of allograft. Adding a vascularized fibula graft to allograft seems to increase bone union rate and reduce the risk of fractures and infections, though a vascularized fibula graft needs longer surgical time and has the disadvantage of donor site morbidity. These various intercalary reconstruction techniques with or without a vascularized fibula autograft had similar functional outcome.

Indexed as

Bone tumorExtracorporeal devitalized autograftsIntercalary reconstructionMassive bone allograftModular prosthesesVascularized fibula graft

Identifiers

PMID34040979
PMCPMC8138587
OpenAlexW3163532522

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.