ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Clinical Outcome After Replacement of Distal Femur/Proximal Tibia in a Heterogeneous Patient Cohort: Function Following Tumour, Trauma, and Loosening.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proximal femoral replacement for oncologic and non-oncologic indications: a retrospective study over a 13-year period.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- [Interprosthetic femoral fractures : Osteosynthesis, megaendoprosthesis, limb salvage?]Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Lower Limb Biomechanical Outcomes Following Endoprosthetic Reconstruction for Distal Femur and Proximal Tibia Bone Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Clinical outcomes of cemented distal femur replacements with all-polyethylene tibial components for oncologic indications.World journal of orthopedics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDistal femur and proximal tibia replacements as limb-salvage procedures with good outcome parameters for patients with tumours have been broadly described. However, the overall midterm outcome in a mixed, heterogeneous patient collective is still unclear. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analysed 59 consecutive patients (33 for primary and 26 for revision surgery) between 1998 and 2017. Indication for implantation was tumour (n=16), periprosthetic fracture (n=14), traumatic fracture (n=14), infection (n=10), aseptic loosening (n=3), and pathological fracture (n=2). The mean follow-up duration was 3 years. Clinical functions were evaluated by Toronto Extremity Salvage Score and Knee Society Score. Knee extension and flexion force were measured.
resultsThe overall survival rate of arthroplasties was 59% (n=35). Major complications were observed in 36 (61%) patients. During the follow-up period, 14 (24%) patients died. We recorded periprosthetic joint infection in 21 (36%) patients, recurrence of tumour in two (3%), and aseptic implant failure in three (5%). The mean Toronto Extremity Salvage Score was 66±33, and the mean Knee Society Score was 49±30. The mean extension force on the operated side was significantly reduced at 60° and 180° compared to the healthy side (p=0.0151 and p=0.0411, respectively).
conclusionDistal femur and proximal tibia replacements showed limited clinical function in a heterogeneous patient collective. Indication for implantation should be considered carefully.
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.