ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
Clinical and functional outcomes of utilising nail cement spacer as a frugal method of reconstruction for tumours of the proximal humerus.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The shoulder girdle and proximal humerus are common sites for neoplastic lesions be it benign or malignant. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of a frugal method of reconstruction of the proximal humerus for neoplastic lesions at short to medium term follow-up. Methods: Data for this retrospective case series was collected from an electronic data base held at the primary authors institution. All patients who had resection of the proximal humerus for any neoplastic lesion and reconstructed with a nail cement spacer were included in the study from January 2016 to January 2023. The functional outcomes were measured by Musculoskeletal tumour society score (MSTS) and the Toronto extremity salvage score (TESS). The survivorship and post-operative complications were also reported. Results: Twenty-two patients were available at final follow up with a mean follow-up time of 37 ± 18 months (range 12-81 months) with Ewing's sarcoma, giant cell tumour, osteosarcoma and metastatic disease as the commonest indications for surgery with a mean age of 29 ± 17 years. The Kaplan-Meier estimates indicated that the survival rate for 22 patients with endpoint (event) taken as death was 63.6 % and for endpoint taken (event) as implant failure was 95.5 % with mean survival time of 58.1 and 77 months respectively. At final follow up, the mean MSTS score was 23.6 ± 2.9 (78.7 %). One patient had superficial infection which settled with a short course of oral antibiotics and one patient had breakage of nail, which was revised. Conclusion: These results prove that this frugal method of reconstruction is comparable with endoprosthesis when considering clinical and functional outcomes but significantly cost effective and should be considered for the individual patient.
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.