SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2022
Comparison of Reconstruction Techniques Following Sacroiliac Tumor Resection: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- How to Treat and Reconstruct the Pelvis After Chondrosarcoma Resection: Indications and Results at Medium- and Long-term in a Series of 34 patients.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Clinical Consequences of Unreconstructed Pelvic Defect Caused by Osteosarcoma with Subsequent Progressive Scoliosis in a Pediatric Patient-Case Report.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- The application of custom 3D-printed prostheses with ultra-short stems in the reconstruction of bone defects: a single center analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- The pedicled sartorius flap and mesh (PSM) technique vs no reconstruction in repairing the defect after type III pelvic bone tumor resection: a retrospective study.World journal of surgical oncology · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough internal hemipelvectomies with sacroiliac resections are not traditionally reconstructed, surgeons are increasingly pursuing pelvic ring reconstruction to theoretically improve stability, function, and early ambulation. This study aims to systematically compare complications and functional and oncologic outcomes of sacroiliac resection with and without reconstruction.
methodsPubMed and MEDLINE were queried for studies published between January 1990 and October 2020 pertaining to sacroiliac neoplasm resection with subsequent reconstruction. Patient demographics, histopathologic diagnoses, reconstruction techniques, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) functional scores, and oncologic outcomes were pooled.
resultsTwenty-three studies (201 patients) were included for analysis. Reconstruction was performed in 79.1% of patients, most commonly with nonvascularized autografts (45.8%). The overall complication rate was 54.8%; however, resection followed by reconstruction demonstrated significantly higher complication (62.3% versus 25.7%, p < 0.001) and infection rates (13.7% versus 0%, p = 0.020). Mean MSTS functional score trended higher in nonreconstructed patients (82% versus 71.6%).
conclusionsReconstruction after sacroiliac resection produced higher complication rates and poorer physical recovery when compared with nonreconstructed resection. This systematic review suggests that patients without spinopelvic junction instability may experience superior outcomes without reconstruction. Ultimately, the need to reconstruct the pelvic girdle depends on tumor size, prognosis, and functional goals.
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.