ReviewJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2025
Intercalary Diaphyseal Endoprosthetic Reconstruction.
Review in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Intercalary endoprosthetic devices are a diaphyseal segmental reconstructive option for both primary tumors and skeletal metastases, most used for pathological fractures or failure of internal fixation. Numerous designs have been employed with varying success. These implants require adequate quality and length bone stock, both proximal and distal, to be employed. Alternative reconstructions may include vascularized fibula autograft, allograft reconstruction, acute shortening, and fixation with cement spacer augmentation with planning staged procedures. The reported functional results and complication profile of intercalary endoprostheses are acceptable, but their use is carefully considered, as aseptic loosening remains one of the most common risks for failure. Although successful at short follow-up, these devices are often used for patients with segmental destruction or tumor involvement of the upper extremity, particularly in cases with metastatic bone disease or myeloma. In this review, we discuss the numerous designs, indications and contraindications, alternative options, biomechanics, reported results, and 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.