ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
Intralesional nerve-sparing surgery versus non-surgical treatment for giant cell tumor of the sacrum.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Denosumab and Risk Factors for Recurrence in Spinal Giant Cell Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Yonsei medical journal · 2022Pooled it
- Giant Cell Tumor of the Sacrum: A Narrative Review of Management Challenges and Modalities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Current Concepts in the Treatment of Giant Cell Tumor of Bone: An Update.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no standard treatment for giant cell tumors of the sacrum. We compared the outcomes and complications in patients with sacral giant cell tumors who underwent intralesional nerve-sparing surgery with or without (neo-) adjuvant therapies versus those who underwent non-surgical treatment (denosumab therapy and/or embolization).
methodsWe retrospectively investigated 15 cases of sacral giant cell tumors treated at two institutions between 2005 and 2020. Nine patients underwent intralesional nerve-sparing surgery with or without (neo-) adjuvant therapies, and six patients received non-surgical treatment. The mean follow-up period was 85 months for the surgical group (range, 25-154 months) and 59 months (range, 17-94 months) for the non-surgical group.
resultsThe local recurrence rate was 44% in the surgical group, and the tumor progression rate was 0% in the non-surgical group. There were two surgery-related complications (infection and bladder laceration) and three denosumab-related complications (apical granuloma of the tooth, stress fracture of the sacroiliac joint, and osteonecrosis of the jaw). In the surgical group, the mean modified Biagini score (bowel, bladder, and motor function) was 0.9; in the non-surgical group, it was 0.5. None of the 11 female patients became pregnant or delivered a baby after developing a sacral giant cell tumor.
conclusionsThe cure rate of intralesional nerve-sparing surgery is over 50%. Non-surgical treatment has a similar risk of complications to intralesional nerve-sparing surgery and has better functional outcomes than intralesional nerve-sparing surgery, but patients must remain on therapy over time. Based on our results, the decision on the choice of treatment for sacral giant cell tumors could be discussed between the surgeon and the patient based on the tumor size and location.
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.