Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34649568›Full record

Observational studyJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2021

The risk for complications and reoperations with the use of mega prostheses in bone reconstructions.

Christina Berger, Sofia Larsson, Peter Bergh, Helena Brisby, David Wennergren

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christina BergerInstitute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. christina.berger@vgregion.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6496-1623
Sofia LarssonInstitute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Peter BerghDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Bruna Stråket 11B, 413 45, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Helena BrisbyInstitute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
David WennergrenInstitute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Sahlgrenska University Hospital · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a relatively high risk for complications and reoperations, mega prostheses are considered a useful method for reconstruction of bone defects after tumour resections. The total number of reoperations has not previously been described, and little is known about the complication rate of mega prostheses used for other indications than primary bone tumours. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The current retrospective observational study aimed to describe the patient population treated with mega prostheses at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden, during 14 consecutive years, reports the complications leading to reoperation and the number and type of reoperations for different kinds of complications, and reports on implant survival.

methodsAll patients treated with a mega prosthesis, regardless of surgical indication and anatomical location, at Sahlgrenska University Hospital during the period 2006-2019 were identified. The medical records for all patients were reviewed. Data regarding age, sex, diagnosis, site of disease, bone resection length, chemotherapeutical treatment and postoperative complications including infections and oncological outcome, were collected and evaluated.

resultsOne hundred and fourteen patients treated with 116 mega prostheses were included in the study. The predominant indication for primary surgery with a mega prosthesis was sarcoma of either bone or soft tissue (53.5% of the patients). In total 51 prostheses (44%) did not require any reoperation after the primary surgery. The most common reason for reoperation was infection (22%) followed by soft tissue failure (13%). The risk for prosthetic infection was significantly higher in the group of patients operated due to sarcoma compared with all other indications for surgery regardless of surgical site (p = 0.004).

conclusionThe study reveals a total reoperation rate of 56% after reconstructive surgery using mega prostheses. Despite the high reoperation rates, at the end of the study period, 83% of the patients had still a functioning prosthesis. Therefore, the use of mega prostheses can be considered a reliable method for reconstruction of large bone defects in selected patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Indexed as

Artificial LimbsBone NeoplasmsPlastic Surgery ProceduresSarcomaHumansPostoperative ComplicationsProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBone reconstructionBone tumoursComplicationsMega prosthesesOrthopaedic oncology

Identifiers

PMID34649568
PMCPMC8515693
OpenAlexW3207698446

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.