Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36929601›Full record

ReviewJournal of surgical oncology2023

What are the indications and survivorship of tumor endoprosthetic reconstructions for patients with extremity metastatic bone disease?

Joseph K Kendal, Christopher D Hamad, Annalise G Abbott, Danielle Greig, Rishi Trikha, Alexander B Christ, Lauren E Wessel, Shannon K T Puloski, Michael J Monument, Nicholas M Bernthal

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of surgical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Joseph K KendalDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9440-2294
Christopher D HamadDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Annalise G AbbottSection of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Danielle GreigDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, California, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3708-5821
Rishi TrikhaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Alexander B ChristDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Lauren E WesselDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, California, USA.
Shannon K T PuloskiSection of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Michael J MonumentSection of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Nicholas M BernthalDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, California, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3338-5878
University of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

Regenerative Musculoskeletal Medicine Training ProgramT32AR059033 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI John S Adams, Nicholas M. Bernthal · 2011 to 2026
$4.8M
NIAMS NIH HHS T32 AR059033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesGiven advances in therapies, endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) in metastatic bone disease (MBD) may be increasingly indicated. The objectives were to review the indications, and implant and patient survivorship in patients undergoing EPR for MBD.

methodsA review of patients undergoing EPR for extremity MBD between 1992 and 2022 at two centers was performed. Surgical data, implant survival, patient survival, and implant failure modes were examined.

resultsOne hundred fifteen patients were included with a median follow-up of 14.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.2-19.3) and survival of 19.4 months (95% CI: 13.6-26.1). The most common diagnosis was renal cell carcinoma (34/115, 29.6%) and the most common location was proximal femur (43/115, 37.4%). Indications included: actualized fracture (58/115, 50.4%), impending fracture (30/115, 26.1%), and failed fixation (27/115, 23.5%). Implant failure was uncommon (10/115, 8.7%). Patients undergoing EPR for failed fixation were more likely to have renal or lung cancer (p = 0.006).

conclusionsEPRs were performed most frequently for renal cell carcinoma and in patients with a relatively favorable survival. EPR was indicated for failed previous fixation in 23.5% of cases, emphasizing the importance of predictive survival modeling. EPR can be a reliable and durable surgical option for patients with MBD.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Renal CellFemoral NeoplasmsKidney NeoplasmsExtremitiesHumansProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureReoperationRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSurvivorshipTreatment Outcomebone neoplasmsendoprosthesesmetastasisorthopedic surgery

Identifiers

PMID36929601
PMCPMC10415177
OpenAlexW4327575207

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.