ArticleJournal of bone oncology2022
Quality of resection margin with patient specific instrument for bone tumor resection.
Article in Journal of bone oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06988007 (Bone Arches), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
Bone Arches: Performance of Pseudo-scanner Sequences in Segmenting the Extent of the Tumour and in Planning Surgical Resection Using the CT Scan as a Reference
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experience-stratified efficacy of 3D printed models in assisting orthopedic residents with pelvic ring injury classification: a comparative analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Observational
- A Proof-of-Concept Solution for Co-locating 2D Histology Images in 3D for Histology-to-CT and MR Image Registration: Closing the Loop for Bone Sarcoma Treatment Planning.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- How precise is excision and reconstruction using 3D printing technology for total sacrectomy: accuracy validation in 9 consecutive cases.3D printing in medicine · 2025Article
- Novel Clinical Practice Assessments: Informational Statements by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the accuracy of 3D-printed patient-specific osteotomy templates in pelvic tumor resection and reconstruction.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- Patient-specific guides for consistently achieving R0 bone margins after resection of primary malignant bone tumors of the pelvis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Fluoroscopically calibrated 3D-printed patient-specific instruments improve the accuracy of osteotomy during bone tumor resection adjacent to joints.3D printing in medicine · 2024Article
- What to choose in bone tumour resections? Patient specific instrumentation versus surgical navigation: a systematic review.Journal of bone oncology · 2023Review
- Surgical margin assessment of bone tumours: A systematic review of current and emerging technologies.Journal of bone oncology · 2023Review
- Current Concepts in the Resection of Bone Tumors Using a Patient-Specific Three-Dimensional Printed Cutting Guide.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient Specific Instruments (PSI) is currently a proven technique for bone tumor resection. In a previous publication, we analyzed the quality of margin resection of pelvic sarcoma resections with the use of PSI (by pathologic evaluation of the margins). In this new study, we compare preoperative resection planning and actual resection margins by MRI analysis of the resection specimens. Methods: Between 2011 and 2020, 31 patients underwent bone tumor resection with the use of PSI. Preoperatively, the margins were planned with a software and PSI were made according to these margins. Postoperatively, the surgical resection specimens were analyzed with MRI. Resection margins were measured with the same software used in the preoperative planning. Results: All margins were safe (free of tumor). The differences between preoperative planned margins and the obtained ones were within the range -5 to +5 mm. The correlation between planned margin and the obtained one was excellent (R Conclusions: This study demonstrates the accuracy of PSI. In our series, all resection margins were safe. A minimal 5 mm-margin has to be planned but a larger sample is needed to give recommendations.
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.