Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40910716›Full record

ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2025

Clinical and radiological outcomes of bioactive glass in the treatment of benign bone tumors: a retrospective study of 64 cases.

Sevan Sivacioglu, Melih Civan, Onur Cetin, Şafak Sayar, Ahmet Salduz, Levent Eralp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sevan SivaciogluPrivate Clinic, Istanbul-Türkiye.
Melih CivanDepartmant of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Cam ve Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul-Türkiye.
Onur CetinDepartmant of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Istanbul Medipol University Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul-Türkiye.
Şafak SayarDepartmant of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Biruni University, Istanbul University Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul-Türkiye.
Ahmet SalduzDepartmant of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Istanbul University Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul-Türkiye.
Levent EralpDepartmant of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Istanbul University Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul-Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBenign and benign-aggressive bone tumors, though non-metastatic, may require surgical intervention due to pain, fracture risk, or functional impairment. In many cases, bone grafting may be required in benign or benign-aggressive bone tumors. Although autografts remain the gold standard, they present disadvantages, especially in pediatric patients. Synthetic alternatives such as bioactive glass (BG) have emerged as viable options. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of BG in the treatment of benign bone tumors.

methodsThis retrospective single-center study evaluated 64 patients (71 procedures) treated with curettage and BG grafting for benign bone tumors between 2004 and 2023. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, and radiological healing was evaluated using the Neer classification.

resultsThe mean follow-up was 25.0+-12.6 months. Significant improvement was observed in MSTS scores (from 17.6+-4.8 to 28.1+-2.0; p<0.05). Neer classification indicated high union rates. Complications included tumor recurrence in four patients (five procedures), fractures in nine patients, and superficial infections in four patients. No deep infections or any other material-related adverse effects were reported.

conclusionBioactive glass is a safe and effective bone substitute for managing benign bone defects, especially in pediatric populations where autograft options are limited. Its osteoconductive durability, infection resistance, and compatibility with bone remodeling make it a strong alternative to traditional grafting techniques.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsBone SubstitutesGlassAdolescentAdultBone TransplantationChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultBone Substitutes

Identifiers

PMID40910716
PMCPMC12460632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.