ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024
Functional audit of the use of megaprosthesis for limb reconstruction in musculoskeletal tumors - A retrospective single-center study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A biosynthetic thumb prosthesis.npj biomedical innovations · 2025Article
- Effect of Plate Configuration in the Primary Stability of Osteotomies and Biological Reconstructions of Femoral Defects: Finite-Element Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Medical advancements in musculoskeletal oncology has significantly reduced the mortality rate associated with limb-sparing surgery, making it comparable to amputation. The use of modular megaprosthesis for sarcoma treatment has now become a standard practice. However, these non-biological implants are not without their complications. Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on all patients who underwent wide resection of locally aggressive and malignant bone tumors, followed by reconstruction with megaprosthesis between January 2018 and January 2023 at tertiary care hospital. Patients were evaluated based on oncological outcomes, functional outcomes, and complications with a minimum follow-up period of 6 months. Results: The study included a total of 30 patients, comprising 16 males and 14 females, with a mean age of 33.6 ± 15.6 years. They all underwent wide resection and reconstruction with megaprosthesis. Diagnosis among the patients included 19 cases of giant cell tumors, 5 cases of osteosarcomas, 2 cases of metastatic bone tumors, and 1 case each of chondrosarcoma, malignant fibrous histiocytoma, multiple myeloma, and chondromyxoid fibroma. These tumors were predominantly located in the distal femur (15 patients) and proximal tibia (12 patients). The average follow-up period was 33 ± 21 months, resulting in an average final Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score of 81 % ± 9 %. Complications were observed in 21 patients, with infection being the most common, specifically Type 4 (10 patients, 37 %), followed by Type 1 (4 patients, 13 %) and Type 3 (4 patients, 13 %). Two patients (7 %) experienced Type 5 complications, while three succumbed to their illnesses. Additionally, two patients required amputation, one due to local recurrence and the other due to a deep-seated infection. Conclusion: Megaprosthesis is a viable reconstruction option following wide resection of bone tumors. Infection remains the most common issue, and cost poses a significant challenge.
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.