ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Osteoarticular allograft versus prosthetic allograft composites: which reconstruction method results in superior outcomes following the resection of proximal femur tumor in adolescent and preadolescent patients?
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary malignant tumors of the proximal femur in children are rare, and there is no consensus about the optimal reconstruction method for this condition. While methods for biological reconstruction-such as vascularized fibular allograft and rotationplasty-and nonbiological options like expandable endoprosthesis exist as reconstructive choices, each method has its distinct advantages and disadvantages. In this study, we compared the outcomes of osteoarticular allograft (OAA) with allograft-prosthetic component (APC) in reconstructing the proximal femur in a cohort of adolescent and preadolescent patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsTwenty patients aged between 8 and 13 years with primary malignant bone tumors of the proximal femur who were managed with either OAA or APC reconstruction were included. The median follow-up was 71 months (range 24-140). The primary outcome of interest was limb function evaluated by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score. Secondary outcomes of interest were surgical complications.
resultsThe median MSTS score of the patients was 23 (range 20-25) in the OAA group and 26 (range 23-27) in the APC group (P = 0.003). Postoperative complications in the OAA group included two nonunions (18.1%), two infections (18.1%), six degenerative joint diseases (54.5%), and one allograft fracture (9.1%). The postoperative complications in the APC group included one nonunion (11.1%), one dislocation (11.1%), and two allograft fractures (22.2%). Allograft fractures were managed with revision and replacement with a tumor prosthesis. No revision was done to address the DJD in the OAA group.
conclusionOA and APC reconstructions of the proximal femur following tumor resection in adolescent and preadolescent patients each have their benefits and associated complications. However, APC reconstruction appears to provide superior limb function and a lower incidence of postoperative complications.
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.