ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
Long-term outcomes and improved risk of revision following tumor endoprosthetic replacement of the distal femur: Single institutional results.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survivorship, complications, and outcomes following distal femoral replacement for neoplastic indications.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Application and Development of Megaprostheses in Limb Salvage for Bone Tumors Around the Knee Joint.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
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
purposeThis study assessed revision characteristics following distal femur tumor endoprosthetic replacement.
methodsFifty-seven procedures were performed between 2005 and 2019. The cumulative incidence of implant revision was calculated with death as a competing risk.
resultsThe all-cause revision rate was 21.1% (n = 12) at a mean 65.3 ± 47.3 months. Competing risk analysis revealed a cumulative revision incidence of 12.0% (95% CI, 3.6-25.9%) at five years and 36.5% (95% CI, 12.8-61.0%) at ten years.
conclusionsWe provide an accurate assessment of revision risk which is slightly lower than historical controls, with identification of failure modes to reliably inform patient expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. Retrospective Study.
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.