ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Exploring the optimal reconstruction strategy for Enneking III defects in pelvis bone tumors: a finite element analysis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. 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.
- Current Treatment Options and Emerging Technologies for Pelvic Bone Tumors: From Limb Salvage to Precision Oncology.Current treatment options in oncology · 2026Review
- Application of a rapid and accurate safe-margin volume generation method in computer-assisted bone tumor resection surgery.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Custom 3D-printed split-type triflange implants for severe acetabular defects: mid-term clinical outcomes and biomechanical insights from finite element analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundControversy exists regarding the reconstruction of bone defects in Enneking III. This study aimed to use the finite element analysis (FEA) method to clarify (1) the utility of reconstructing the pelvis Enneking III region and (2) the optimal approach for this reconstruction.
methodsFEA models were generated for three types of Enneking III defects in the pelvis, replacing all the defect areas in region III with a sizable solid box for topology optimization (TO). Based on the defect location and TO results, three reconstruction schemes were designed for each type of defect. We subsequently conducted simulations of static FEA under natural walking loads using ANSYS software (version 2022R1, Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, USA).
resultsCompared with Scheme A, reconstruction of the Enneking III region (Schemes B and C) led to a more uniform stress distribution and lower peak stress in the pelvis. Moreover, prostheses and screws exhibit decreased peak stress and deformation, with complex reconstruction schemes (C) outperforming simpler ones (B).
conclusionsThe FEA results suggest that reconstructing Enneking Zone III defects improves stress distribution and reduces peak stress in the pelvis compared to non-reconstruction, potentially enhancing stability and reducing fracture risks. Complex reconstruction schemes involving more contralateral pelvis regions demonstrate superior biomechanical performance. However, clinical decisions should be individualized, integrating biomechanical insights with comprehensive patient-specific factors.
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.