ReviewJournal of bone oncology2021
Frequency and reason for reoperation following non-invasive expandable endoprostheses: A systematic review.
Review in Journal of bone oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rotating hinge expandable prostheses may have a higher risk of medial tibial plateau deformity compared to constrained hinged expandable prostheses following reconstruction of distal femur in children with primary bone tumors.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- [Reconstruction of bone defects after resection of osteosarcoma in children with artificial hemi-knee prosthesis].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025Article
- Development and clinical application of extendable prostheses in limb salvage surgery for primary malignant bone tumours in children : a systematic review of functional outcomes and complications.Bone & joint research · 2025Article
- Successful limb-salvage procedure using a bioexpandable prosthesis after infected primary reconstruction of the distal femur in a skeletally immature patient: a case report.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Survival and functional outcomes after hemiarthroplasty in children with proximal tibial osteosarcoma.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Expandable endoprostheses in skeletally immature patients: Where we are.World journal of orthopedics · 2024Article
- Survivorship, complications, and outcomes following distal femoral replacement for neoplastic indications.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- A novel non-invasive electromagnetic extendable intercalary endoprosthesis: a proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Expandable Prosthesis Reconstruction to Treat Osteosarcoma around the Knee in Children.Orthopaedic surgery · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNon-invasive expandable endoprostheses (NIEPR) utilize an external electromagnetic field to drive an innate mechanical gearbox. This lengthens the extremity following oncological resections in children with a predicted limb length discrepancy (LLD), facilitating limb-salvage. This review was conducted to assess NIEPR implant survival rates and identify modes of implant failure unique to these prostheses.
methodsMedline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for all manuscripts evaluating implant survival of NIEPRs implanted into skeletally immature patients following resection of extremity sarcomas. Minimum follow-up of 12 months or implant failure was required for inclusion. Failures were classified using the latest ISOLS classification and exact implant-specific failure modality was also identified.
results19 studies met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 10.0 years (7.7 - 11.4 years). The most common locations for NIEPR implantation were the distal femur (343, 76.7%) and proximal tibia (53, 119%). Mean follow-up was 65.3 months (19.4 - 163 months). The overall implant revision rate was 46.2% (0 - 100%); implant specific revisions included maximal prosthesis lengthening with persistent LLD (10.4%), failed extension mechanism (6.1%), implant fracture (7.7%), hinge fracture (1.4%) and bushing wear (0.9%). Persistent clinically significant (>20 mm) LLD at final follow-up was present in 19.2% (0 - 50%) of patients. The mean MSTS score was 85.1% (66.7-96.3%) at final follow-up.
conclusionImplant-related failures are the most common reason for NIEPR revision. Implant reliability appears to be improved with current designs. A sub-classification to the current classification system based on implant-specific failures for NIEPRs is proposed.
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.