Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34417851›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2022

Mid-term implant survival, functional and radiological results and mechanical complications of mega-prosthetic reconstruction around the knee with the PENTA® system.

Harzem Özger, Bugra Alpan, Ahmet Salduz, Volkan Gurkan, Mustafa Sungur, Natig Valiyev, Levent Eralp

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Harzem ÖzgerIstanbul Faculty of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (Retired), Istanbul University, Capa 34093, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Bugra AlpanSchool of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University, Kayısdagi, Cad. 34752, Atasehir, Istanbul, Turkey. balpan@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2573-8605
Ahmet SalduzIstanbul Faculty of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology , Istanbul University, Capa 34093, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Volkan GurkanMedical Faculty, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Bezm-i Alem Vakif University, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Mustafa SungurDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, AcibademAtakent Hospital, Turgut Ozal Bulvari No:16, 34303, Kucukcekmece, Istanbul, Turkey.
Natig ValiyevDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Acibadem Maslak Hospital, Buyukdere Caddesi No:40, 34457, Sariyer, Istanbul, Turkey.
Levent EralpIstanbul Faculty of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (Retired), Istanbul University, Capa 34093, Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey.
Istanbul University · TRAcıbadem University · TRAcıbadem University Atakent Hospital · TRBezmiâlem Vakıf Üniversitesi · TRKent Hastanesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimMega-prosthetic reconstruction is the most common treatment method for massive osteoarticular defects caused by tumor resection around the knee. The new implant is a highly modular rotational-hinged megaprosthesis system with a distinct pentagonal stem geometry and variable implantation options. The aim of this study is to present the mid-term implant survival characteristics, functional and radiological results and mechanical complication profile of the new megaprosthesis.

methodsOne hundred and one mega-prosthetic knee reconstruction procedures in 90 patients (M/F: 51/39) utilizing the new implant system were retrospectively analyzed. In 68 patients, the megaprosthesis was used for primary reconstruction following tumor resection while it was used for revision of other implants in 22. The mean age was 28.5 (7-66) years and the mean follow-up was 59.2 (24-124) months. The most common primary pathology was osteosarcoma with 63-70% patients, the most common anatomical site of involvement was the distal femur with 56-62% patients.

resultsHenderson Type 2 failure (aseptic loosening) was seen in only 2-2.2% patients while Type 3 (structural failure) was seen in 29-32.2% Although the 5-year anchorage survival rate was 94.3%, overall mechanical implant survival was 76.1% at 5 years due to a relatively high failure rate in the first-generation hinge mechanism of the implant. The 5-year hinge survival rate demonstrated a significant improvement rate from 61.7% to 87.2% between the first and second generations of the implant (p = 0.027). The mean MSTS score was 24 out of 30 (14-29). The mean cumulative ISOLS radiographic score for index megaprosthesis operations was 19.7 (12-24), which corresponded to excellent outcome.

conclusionThe new megaprosthesis system is a reliable choice for the reconstruction of tumor-related massive osteoarticular defects around the knee. Although long-term follow-up is necessary for a definitive evaluation of the implant's survival characteristics, midterm follow-up yields exceptional anchorage properties related to pentagonal stem geometry with very good functional outcomes.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsRubiaceaeAdultHumansProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBone neoplasmsKnee jointKnee prosthesisLimb salvageProsthesis failureProsthesis survivalReconstructive surgical procedureSurgical oncology

Identifiers

PMID34417851
PMCPMC9381614
OpenAlexW3193768632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.