ArticleCureus2025
A Novel Implant Design for Cemented Endoprosthesis Stems to Reduce the Risk of Bone Cement Implantation Syndrome.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Bone cement implantation syndrome: a scoping review.British journal of anaesthesia · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBone cement implantation syndrome (BCIS) is a life-threatening risk of cemented stems. There are limited methods to prevent BCIS and few published studies. A survey of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) surgeons was conducted to evaluate their experiences with BCIS. A novel stem designed to reduce intramedullary pressure during insertion was evaluated.
methodsA survey was distributed to MSTS members, and data was collected. The novel stem featured a hollow longitudinal channel, an entry hole at the tip, and an egress hole at the collar for cement to flow from the intramedullary canal during insertion. Bending stiffness was compared using finite element analysis to a standard solid stem. Stems were cemented into cadaveric femurs. Specimens were loaded with 8000 N tensile force and then maximally torqued until failure. Intramedullary pressures were measured for novel and standard stems cemented into sawbones.
resultsIn 107 survey responses, 58% (n = 63) experienced severe BCIS, and 83% (n = 52) of those had ≥1 death from BCIS complications. Many surgeons avoid cementing long stems, and 78% (n = 14) report concern for BCIS as the reason. Seventy-nine percent (n = 84) use an average of 4.75 different methods to reduce BCIS risk. The novel stem demonstrated 2.8% reduced bending stiffness. When cemented into cadaveric bone, both stem designs achieved 8000 N of tensile force, and there was no significant difference in torque failure (140.6 Nm in the novel stem; 128 Nm in the standard stem). The average peak pressure was significantly lower for the novel stem (77 psi vs. 151 psi).
conclusionsThe majority of surgeons have concerns regarding BCIS based on their experience and use multiple methods to reduce risk. A novel stem can reduce the intramedullary insertion pressure by approximately half and possibly reduce the risk of BCIS. Testing demonstrates similar stiffness and stability compared to standard solid stems.
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.