ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Carbon fibre PEEK versus titanium cephalomedullary nails for management of oncological lesions of the femur: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarbon fibre reinforced polyetheretherketone (CF-PEEK) intramedullary devices have been gaining traction in the field of orthopaedic oncology. We aim to investigate the safety and efficacy of this device.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was performed. Our primary objectives were to compare all-cause revision and the incidence of postoperative complications between CF-PEEK nails (Group 1) to titanium alloy nails (Group 2) for management of oncological lesions of the femur. Secondary objectives were to compare estimated blood loss and all-cause mortality between the two groups. Each outcome was adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anaesthesiologist score and surgical indication (pathological fracture versus prophylactic fixation).
resultsEighty-two patients with 85 hips (Group 1 = 50; Group 2 = 35) were identified. Our competing risk analysis found no significant difference in the revision risk between groups (subdistribution hazard ratio = 1.14, p = 0.931). There was an 85% increase in odds of complication in Group 2 which was not statistically significant (p = 0.249). Furthermore, those in Group 2 experienced 306.35 mL less blood loss than Group 1, which was also not statistically significant (p = 0.086). There was no difference in all-cause mortality between groups (HR = 1.11, p = 0.702).
conclusionOur study demonstrates no difference in the safety and efficacy profile of CF-PEEK nails as compared to titanium alloy nails in the management of oncological lesions of the femur. This needs to be interpreted with caution given the underpowered nature of this study. Furthermore, the current implant cost of CF-PEEK nails is prohibitive. Adequately powered randomised controlled trials or multinational registry-based studies incorporating economic assessment and patient reported outcome measures are required to further investigate this new technology prior to its adoption. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III.
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.