ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2021
Distal femoral replacement - Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature.
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early loosening of the femoral stem in cemented segmental prostheses with distal femur replacement (DFR): a multicenter observational study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Observational
- Article
- The Survival Rate and Its Influencing Factors of Modular Endoprosthetic Replacement With Uncemented Stem for the Proximal Femur After Primary Tumor Resection.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- A novel radiological index uses the inner canal diameter and the Citak classification index to predict risk factor for aseptic loosening following hinged total knee arthroplasty.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
- Article
- Clinical outcomes of cemented distal femur replacements with all-polyethylene tibial components for oncologic indications.World journal of orthopedics · 2023Article
- A comparison of cemented and cementless intra-neck curved stem use during hip-preserving reconstruction following massive femoral malignant tumor removal.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique.
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.