ArticleCell and tissue banking2025
How to predict structural allograft survival in tibial reconstructions.
Article in Cell and tissue banking, 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.
- Biomechanical characteristics of frozen bone allografts after gene therapy-induced revascularization.Academia biology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Tibial reconstruction for major bone loss is a challenging surgical situation. For more than 30 years, massive bone allografts entered our therapeutic arsenal as a major tool to reconstruct large bone defect. Despite allograft is valued for its convenience, it is still burdened by a high complication rate. This retrospective monocentric study focuses on the clinical outcomes of massive tibial allografts and their outcome's prediction. Between 1987 and 2022, the files of 148 massive tibial allografts were retrospectively reviewed (registration number B403201523492). Survival curves were calculated based on the allograft success or failure. Survival curves without revision surgery were calculated following the same design. Finally, multiple logistic regression models were set up to point out variables that influence the allograft survival. After 30 years, 87.2% of the patient retained limb function. However, 55% of the allograft failed and had to be removed (mean survival time is 20.06 ± 2.07 years (CI 16.0-24.1)). The estimate mean survival time is 10.26 ± 1.60 years (CI 7.1-13.4) with less than 20% survival for the allografts without revision surgery after 30 years. Tumor and septic indications worsen the prognosis as well as the number of revision surgeries and the osteochondral allograft type. In contrast, PSI use or traumatological indications improve the allograft survival. Despite remaining an excellent surgical reconstructive option, massive tibial allografts show a high revision surgery rate. Thanks to our multiple logistic regression models, we can start to predict and improve the final outcomes of these complex allograft reconstruction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40347297What 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.