SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Comparative evaluation of treatment strategies for femoral metastases: endoprosthesis reconstruction versus intramedullary nailing.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdvances in cancer treatment have increased survival rates, leading to a higher incidence of femoral metastases, affecting approximately 20,000 patients annually. Surgical management typically involves intramedullary nailing (IMN) or endoprosthesis (EP). This meta-analysis compares IMN and EP outcomes regarding infection rates, reoperations, and implant failures across short- and intermediate-term follow-up periods.
methodsA systematic review following PRISMA guidelines identified studies from PubMed evaluating IMN and EP for metastatic femoral disease. Eligible studies, in English and with > 10 patients, underwent qualitative and quantitative analysis using fixed or random-effects models.
resultsData from 10 studies (1,047 patients) were analyzed. Short-term superficial infection rates were 2.5% for IMN and 3.5% for EP (p = 0.00308). Implant failure rates were 5.3% for IMN and 5.0% for EP (p = 0.00660). Deep infections were 0.4% (IMN) and 3.5% (EP, p = 0.0106). Reoperation rates were 2.5% (IMN) versus 4.8% (EP, p = 0.00667). After 6 months, reoperations occurred in 6.7% (IMN) versus 3.3% (EP, p = 0.0245), while deep infections were 0% (IMN) and 1.4% (EP, p = 0.00749). Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between groups for these outcomes.
conclusionsBoth IMN and EP are effective for femoral metastases, with each having unique risks and benefits. Patient-specific factors should guide treatment choice. Further studies are needed to refine surgical selection criteria and improve outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40550922What 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.