ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Cemented vs uncemented megaprostheses in proximal femur metastases: a multicentric comparative study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Infection prevention in total knee arthroplasty: current concepts, controversies, and a clinical algorithm.European journal of translational myology · 2026Article
- Intramedullary Nailing Versus Modular Megaprosthesis in Pathological Humeral Fractures: A 10-Year Retrospective Comparative Study.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Extensive Femoral Bone Loss Following Two-Stage Periprosthetic Joint Infection Treatment: Persistent Challenges in Proximal Femoral Replacement.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- The Survival Rate and Its Influencing Factors of Modular Endoprosthetic Replacement With Uncemented Stem for the Proximal Femur After Primary Tumor Resection.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Proximal femur replacement in oncologic lesion: hemiarthroplasty vs total hip arthroplasty-a multicentric retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Surgical management of metastatic lesions in the proximal femur: a systematic review.EFORT open reviews · 2025Article
- Carbon vs. Titanium Nails in the Treatment of Impending and Pathological Fractures: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Proximal Femur Megaprostheses in Orthopedic Oncology: Evaluation of a Standardized Post-operative Rehabilitation Protocol.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Hemiarthroplasty vs. internal fixation for nondisplaced femoral neck fracture in mainland China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- Electrochemotherapy in the Treatment of Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHip megaprostheses are a long known reconstructive method in the treatment of proximal femur metastases. The use of cemented or uncemented stems is still matter of debate. The aim of this study to compare cemented and uncemented megaprostheses on functional outcomes and complications, in order to establish the role of cementation.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed 51 metastatic patients with proximal femur metastases treated with endoprosthetic reconstruction by megaprostheses, 25 with cementless stems and 26 with cemented ones with different megaprosthetic implants. The primary endpoint was MSTS score, and the secondary endpoint was to state the incidence of surgical and clinical complications in the two groups. An un-paired T test was used to compare anthropometric, anamnestic data, and MSTS. Chi-square test was performed for evaluation of complication in the two group. Multiple linear regression was used to match the functional outcomes and complications' incidence in the population study. Logistic regression was performed to analyse the odds ratio of different parameters and their role in the incidence of complications.
resultsThe mean follow-up was 50.1 months (+ 12.5). In thirty case right side was involved. No statistical differences were noticed between Group A and B regard the age, gender, active fracture/impending fracture. Comparing the MSTS results within the two groups at last follow-up, the score cemented group was higher than cementless one (17.9 + 7.8 vs 24.2 + 5.3; statistical significance p = 0.001). Regarding surgical complications a logistic regression was performed to analyse the odds ratio of age, cementation and length of resection; cementation confirm and odds ratio of 11 times in the incidence of surgical complications.
conclusionsCementation seems to be more liable to complications onset, while improves functional score in metastatic patients compared to uncemented megaprostheses. More studies have to be conducted in order to create a protocol and establish criteria to use cemented or uncemented stems in a frail population like metastatic patients.
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.