Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36129463›Full record

ArticleBone & joint open2022

Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia for oncological conditions.

Federico Sacchetti, Will Aston, Rob Pollock, Panos Gikas, Pierluigi Cuomo, Craig Gerrand

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bone & joint open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Federico SacchettiDivisione di Ortopedia Oncologica e Ricostruttiva, Careggi University Hospital (Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi), Florence, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1276-0624
Will AstonRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Rob PollockRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Panos GikasRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Pierluigi CuomoDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Craig GerrandRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust · GBAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi · ITImperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe proximal tibia (PT) is the anatomical site most frequently affected by primary bone tumours after the distal femur. Reconstruction of the PT remains challenging because of the poor soft-tissue cover and the need to reconstruct the extensor mechanism. Reconstructive techniques include implantation of massive endoprosthesis (megaprosthesis), osteoarticular allografts (OAs), or allograft-prosthesis composites (APCs).

methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of clinical data relating to patients who underwent proximal tibial arthroplasty in our regional bone tumour centre from 2010 to 2018.

resultsA total of 76 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Mean age at surgery was 43.2 years (12 to 86 (SD 21)). The mean follow-up period was 60.1 months (5.4 to 353). In total 21 failures were identified, giving an overall failure rate of 27.6%. Prosthesis survival at five years was 75.5%, and at ten years was 59%. At last follow-up, mean knee flexion was 89.8° (SD 36°) with a mean extensor lag of 18.1° (SD 24°). In univariate analysis, factors associated with better survival of the prosthesis were a malignant or metastatic cancer diagnosis (versus benign), with a five- and ten-year survival of 78.9% and 65.7% versus 37.5% (p = 0.045), while in-hospital length of stay longer than nine days was also associated with better prognosis with five- and ten-year survival rates at 84% and 84% versus 60% and 16% (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, only in-hospital length of stay was associated with longer survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.66).

conclusionWe have shown that proximal tibial arthroplasty with endoprosthesis is a safe and reliable method for reconstruction in patients treated for orthopaedic oncological conditions. Either modular or custom implants in this series performed well.Cite this article:

Indexed as

allograftsarthroplastiesbone tumourBone tumourdistal femurEndoprosthesisExtensor mechanismknee flexionmegaprosthesisMegaprosthesismultivariate analysisOrthopaedic oncologyprimary bone tumoursproximal tibiaProximal tibia

Identifiers

PMID36129463
PMCPMC9533251
OpenAlexW4296711804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.