ArticleEFORT open reviews2025
Comparative outcomes of internal fixation versus prosthetic reconstruction in the treatment of proximal femoral metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 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.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Metastatic disease frequently causes pathological fractures, particularly in the proximal femur, significantly impacting patient prognosis and quality of life. With the advancements in cancer treatment leading to longer survival, there is a pressing need to evaluate the outcomes of surgical interventions aimed at managing proximal femoral metastases. This study compares the outcomes of internal fixation (IF) versus prosthesis (P) in the treatment of proximal femoral metastases, focusing on survival times, complication rates, functional outcomes, and reoperation rates. Method: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies published up to December 31, 2023. The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Studies comparing IF and P for proximal femoral metastases were included. Data on survival times, blood loss, reoperation rates, and functional scores were extracted and analyzed using the forest plot technique and inverse variance method. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: In total, 19 studies (16 retrospective and three prospective) involving 4,126 patients were included. The P group demonstrated significantly longer survival times compared with the IF group, with no significant difference in complication and reoperation rates between the two methods. However, IF was associated with shorter operative times and less blood loss. Conclusion: P may provide superior long-term functional outcomes and extended survival compared with IF, with similar rates of complications and reoperations. However, selection bias - where healthier patients with better baseline physiology are more likely to undergo prosthetic reconstruction - significantly impacts the interpretation of these findings, underscoring the need for further prospective studies.
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.