Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38363346›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024

Similar complications, implant survival, and function following modular prosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions of the proximal femur for primary bone tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ahmed Atherley O'Meally, Monica Cosentino, Hisaki Aiba, Ayano Aso, Konstantina Solou, Giovanni Rizzi, Barbara Bordini, Davide Maria Donati, Costantino Errani

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Ahmed Atherley O'MeallyClinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica III a Prevalente Indirizzo Oncologico, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Monica CosentinoMedical Technology Laboratory, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Hisaki AibaClinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica III a Prevalente Indirizzo Oncologico, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Ayano AsoClinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica III a Prevalente Indirizzo Oncologico, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Konstantina SolouClinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica III a Prevalente Indirizzo Oncologico, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Giovanni RizziClinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica III a Prevalente Indirizzo Oncologico, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Barbara BordiniMedical Technology Laboratory, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Davide Maria DonatiClinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica III a Prevalente Indirizzo Oncologico, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Costantino ErraniClinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica III a Prevalente Indirizzo Oncologico, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy. costantino.errani@ior.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4504-2867
Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli · ITNagoya City University · JPUniversity of Patras · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere is a lack of consensus regarding the best type of reconstruction of the proximal femur following bone tumor resection. The objective of this study was to analyze the complication risks, implant survival, and functional outcomes following modular prosthesis (MP) and allograft-prosthesis composite (APC) reconstruction of the proximal femur after primary bone tumor resections.

methodsWe performed a search in the PubMed and Scopus libraries, obtaining 1 843 studies. We included studies reporting functional outcomes, complications, and implant survival of proximal femur reconstruction with MP or APC following primary bone tumor resection with a 2-year minimum follow-up. We excluded studies analyzing metastatic patients or studies with pooled data in which it was impossible to separate the data of patients with primary bone tumors from those with bone metastases.

resultsWe analyzed 18 studies (483 patients) reporting on 234 (48%) patients with MP reconstruction and 249 (52%) patients with APC reconstruction. The risk of complications was similar in patients with MP reconstruction (29%; 95% CI [0.11; 0.47]) and APC reconstruction (36%; 95% CI [0.24; 0.47]) (p = 0.48). Implant survival following MP reconstruction ranged from 81 to 86% at 5 years, 75 to 86% at 10 years, and 82% at 15 years. Implant survival following APC reconstruction ranged from 86 to 100% at 5 years and 86% at 10 years, and 86% at 15 years. Functional outcomes following MP reconstruction and APC reconstruction ranged from 24.0 to 28.3 and from 21.9 to 27.8, respectively.

conclusionPatients with primary bone tumor of the proximal femur who underwent MP or APC reconstruction seem to have similar complication risks, implant survival, and functional outcomes.

Indexed as

Femoral NeoplasmsAllograftsBone TransplantationFemurHumansPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeAllograft-prosthesis compositeComplicationsMeta-analysisModular prosthesisPrimary bone tumorsProximal femur

Identifiers

PMID38363346
OpenAlexW4391880683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.