ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Microwave-assisted intralesional curettage combined with other adjuvant methods for treatment of Campanacci III giant cell tumor of bone in distal radius: a multicenter clinical study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Management of distal radius giant cell tumours using En-bloc resection, non-vascularized ipsilateral fibular head-shaft autograft, and distal radioulnar ligament reconstruction.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Efficacy of microwaveAmerican journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of microwave-assisted intralesional curettage(MAIC) with those of Materials and methods: In this retrospective study, 19 patients with grade III GCTB of the distal radius who underwent surgery at three medical institutions were included and categorized based on their surgical pattern. Seven patients underwent MAIC and internal fixation with bone cement (MAIC group) and 12 underwent EBR-AFR (EBR-AFR group). To evaluate the function of the affected limb postoperatively, wrist range of motion, grip strength, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores were recorded. Results: The follow-up time of the MAIC group was 73.57 ± 28.61 (36-116) months, with no recurrence or lung metastasis. In contrast, the follow-up time of the EBR-AFR group was 55.67 ± 28.74 (36-132) months, with 1 case of local recurrence (8.3%, 1/12) and 1 case of lung metastasis (8.3%, 1/12). The wrist flexion, extension, supination, pronation, grip strength were better in the MAIC group than in the EBR-AFR group. Although there was no statistically significant difference in the MSTS score between the two groups, it is noteworthy that the MAIC group exhibited significantly superior emotional acceptance and hand positioning compared to the EBR-AFR group( Conclusion: The functional outcomes of the MAIC group are better. The treatment strategy for grade III GCTB of the distal radius should be determined based on the specific preoperative imaging findings. Nevertheless, MAIC can be the preferred surgical approach for most patients with grade III GCTB of the distal radius, particularly for young patients.
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.