Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41008796›Full record

ReviewCancers2025

Rehabilitation Protocols and Functional Outcomes in Oncological Patients Treated with Modular Megaprosthesis: A Systematic Review.

Filip Fryderyk Brzeszczyński, Michał Karpiński, Marcel Aleksander Brzeszczyński, Oktawiusz Bończak, David F Hamilton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The functional recovery trajectory in patients undergoing lower limb salvage surgery for bone tumour: an observational study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Observational
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

5 authors.

Filip Fryderyk BrzeszczyńskiDepartment of Trauma, Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Oncology, Copernicus Memorial Hospital, 93-513 Lodz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0155-6372
Michał KarpińskiDepartment of Trauma, Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Oncology, Copernicus Memorial Hospital, 93-513 Lodz, Poland.
Marcel Aleksander BrzeszczyńskiThe School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3FX, UK.ORCID 0009-0001-1353-1412
Oktawiusz BończakDepartment of Trauma, Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Oncology, Copernicus Memorial Hospital, 93-513 Lodz, Poland.
David F HamiltonResearch Centre for Health, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9060-9255

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesBone reconstruction using megaprostheses is increasingly performed following bone tumour resections, including sarcomas, to enhance patient outcomes and quality of life. However, this is a complex patient group, and there is little consensus as to postoperative rehabilitation and associated outcomes.

methodsA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases according to the Implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science (PERSiST) guidelines. Studies describing rehabilitation protocols and functional outcomes following bone tumour resection and modular oncologic megaprosthesis reconstruction were included. All papers were individually assessed for methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool.

resultsThe search generated 105 records, 28 underwent full-text review, and 13 studies were included. Available data reflect 371 patients with a mean age of 49.17 (S.D. 21.40) years and a mean postoperative follow-up of 41.88 (S.D. 32.88) months. Surgical indications were documented as sarcomas in 9 studies, and tumour metastasis to the bone in 10 studies. Rehabilitation protocols were reported in 5 studies following proximal humerus resection with a mean dislocation rate of 14.5% (S.D. 5.26). All protocols advised brace immobilisation for a period ranging between 10 days and 6 months. Superior Constant-Murley shoulder score was reported in patients with early active isometric exercises at 6 weeks. Six studies reported proximal femur prosthesis rehabilitation and functional outcomes, with a mean dislocation rate of 10% (S.D. 9.82). Enhanced outcomes were reported in studies employing early mobilisation. Two studies assessed distal femur prosthesis; both studies reported similar protocols with full weight bearing 3 weeks following surgery. The methodological quality of the studies varied, but was overall modest, with 10/13 studies meeting at least 50% of JBI reporting criteria.

conclusionsThe existing literature on rehabilitation and outcomes in orthopaedic oncology patients following arthroplasty with megaprosthesis is limited, with rehabilitative protocols variably described. However, it seems that early active mobilisation does not increase the risk of joint dislocations or infections.

Indexed as

arthroplastymegaprosthesisorthopaedic oncologyrehabilitative outcomes

Identifiers

PMID41008796
PMCPMC12468500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.