ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2025
A comprehensive evaluation of intramedullary devices in the management of femoral metastasis: 30-day outcomes.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative evaluation of treatment strategies for femoral metastases: endoprosthesis reconstruction versus intramedullary nailing.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Pooled it
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
Introduction: Bone metastases, affecting 40% to 60% of patients with metastatic disease, are a significant concern, with the femur being one of the most common sites. These metastases significantly impact quality of life and present complex treatment challenges. Intramedullary nailing (IMN) is frequently used for femoral metastases owing to its minimally invasive nature and favorable outcomes. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2016-2021). Patients aged 18 and older who underwent IMN for metastatic femoral disease were included. The primary endpoints were 30-day reoperation and readmission rates. Secondary endpoints assessed 30-day postoperative complications. Results: The cohort primarily comprised female patients (62.7%, n = 482) with notable comorbidities such as hypertension (48.9%) and high smoking rates (71.3%). Low rates of specific reoperations (0.4%, n = 3) and unplanned reoperations (1.7%, n = 13) were observed within 30 days. The incidence of deep vein thrombosis was 1.2%, and the incidence of pulmonary embolism was 0.7%. Surgical site infections were rare ( Conclusion: IMN is a safe and effective surgical option for treating metastatic femoral lesions, providing a favorable safety profile. Further research is recommended to explore thromboembolic risks and optimize preventive strategies.
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.