Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40071964›Full record

ArticleEFORT open reviews2025

Surgical management of metastatic lesions in the proximal femur: a systematic review.

Afrim Iljazi, Mads Sten Andersen, Stig Brorson, Michael Mørk Petersen, Michala Skovlund Sørensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFORT open reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mads Sten Andersen
Stig Brorson
Michael Mørk Petersen
Michala Skovlund Sørensen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The proximal femur is a frequent site of cancer dissemination in the extremities. Patients treated surgically for skeletal metastases have poorer overall health compared to other orthopedic patients, with only one-third expected to survive two years post-surgery. Choosing a treatment that minimizes revision risk and ensures the implant outlives the patient is therefore crucial. We conducted a systematic review to assess the revision rate following internal fixation (IF) or endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) of the proximal femur for metastatic bone disease (MBD). Methods: This study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase were searched, identifying 10,299 records. After removing duplicates, 7731 unique records were screened, 334 of which were retrieved for full-text screening. We included 34 studies in the qualitative synthesis. The MINORS instrument was used for quality assessment. Results: The quality of the included studies was low to moderate, with median scores of 6/16 for non-comparative studies and 10/24 for comparative studies. We therefore refrained from a comparative analysis. Revision rates varied between 0 and 12.4% following EPR (25 studies) and between 0 and 26.7% following IF, while implant removal rates ranged between 0 and 8.3% and 0 and 26.7%, respectively. Conclusions: Revision and implant removal rates for various methods of EPR and IF are satisfactory. However, a meta-analysis or comparison between IF and EPR is not feasible due to a lack of prospective studies, randomized trials and high-quality studies.

Indexed as

diseaseinternalmetastatic boneproximal femursystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40071964
PMCPMC11825154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.