ReviewCureus2024
Limb Salvage and Pelvic Reconstruction With Endoprosthesis After Pelvic Tumor Resection: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complications of PI to PIII hemipelvic resections for intermediate and malignant tumours : a systematic review and meta-analysis.Bone & joint open · 2026Article
- Review
- Modular Hemipelvic Prosthesis Preserves Normal Biomechanics and Showed Good Compatibility: A Finite Element Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Periacetabular defects following tumor resection present formidable challenges in reconstruction and continue to pose clinical difficulties. Historically, treatment approaches leaned towards hindquarter amputation; however, due to associated morbidities and functional limitations, limb-sparing procedures gained prominence in the 1980s. Nevertheless, the intricacies of pelvic anatomy and the imperative of achieving wide surgical margins while preserving essential structures make pelvic tumor resection and subsequent reconstruction inherently complex. Various reconstruction modalities have been explored, including non-vascularized fibular grafts and prosthetic implants. Among these options, the LUMiC® endoprosthesis stands out as a promising solution for pelvic reconstruction post-tumor resection. Characterized by a modular design featuring a hydroxyapatite-coated stem and acetabular cup, this device has shown favorable implant survival rates in studies, despite encountering complications primarily associated with soft tissue failure, dislocation, and infection. Notably, the incidence of complications varies across studies. The Henderson classification system delineates these complications, encompassing soft tissue issues, aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fractures, infections, and tumor recurrence. Despite the encouraging functional outcomes associated with the LUMiC® endoprosthesis, it is not immune to limitations. Concerns persist regarding complications such as dislocation and infection, underscoring the imperative for further research to evaluate the long-term durability and reliability of this reconstructive approach. Moreover, advancements in surgical techniques, perioperative management, and the advent of navigation-assisted procedures hold promise for enhancing outcomes and mitigating complication rates in pelvic reconstruction surgeries.
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.