Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38529166›Full record

ArticleAnnals of joint2022

Prophylactic surgical treatment using CT-based rigidity analysis

Kaitlyn DeHority, Tina Craig, Timothy A Damron

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of joint, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 87% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kaitlyn DeHorityDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, NY, USA.
Tina CraigDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, NY, USA.
Timothy A DamronDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9403-4030
SUNY Upstate Medical University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Accurate comparison of prophylactic surgical treatment (PST) to after fracture treatment (AF) of patients with femoral metastatic disease requires more accurately identifying patients for impending fracture, such as with CT-based structural rigidity analysis (CTRA). This study compares a more accurately defined PST group (of impending fractures defined by CTRA) to AF for metastatic femoral disease. Methods: PST patients were enrolled and treated by the PI in a longitudinal multicenter study of impending pathologic fractures evaluated for accuracy by CTRA. The AF patients were also treated by the senior author and were identified by retrospective chart review. Fifty-five patients were treated surgically for metastatic femoral lesions and were divided into three groups for the purpose of this study: Group I (AF), Group II (PST-high), and Group III (PST-low). Demographic information, comorbidities, and clinical variables of interest were collected by retrospective chart review; cost data was collected by collaboration with our hospital financial personnel (office of the Chief Financial Officer). Results: Survival showed statistically significant differences favoring Group II. Transfusions in Group I were nearly twice those of Groups II and III, but there was no statistically significant (NS) difference between groups. Estimated blood loss (EBL) was generally with NS difference. Similarly, there were NS differences in LOS between groups. Discharge disposition showed statistically significant differences between groups (P=0.012, global). Discharge to home was highest in Group II (76%) and lowest in Group I (27%). Discharge to rehab was lowest in Group II (24%) and highest in Group I (47%). There were no discharges to hospice or morgue in Group II, while both occurred in Group I. Mean direct and total costs were highest in Group I ($18,837 and $31,997, respectively) and lowest in Group II ($16,094 and $27,357) but the differences were NS. Conclusions: This study shows benefits of PST over AF in a group of PST patients more accurately defined to have impending pathologic fractures by CTRA definition.

Indexed as

fracture predictionimpending fracturemetastatic carcinomaPathologic fractureproximal femur

Identifiers

PMID38529166
PMCPMC10929439
OpenAlexW3177223241

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.