ArticleBone & joint open2026
Experience of periprosthetic infection in sarcoma patients following megaprosthetic reconstruction.
Article in Bone & joint open, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aims: To explore the lived experiences of patients with periprosthetic infection in a mega prosthesis reconstruction after sarcoma resection. Methods: Sarcoma patients treated between January 2016 and May 2023 with a surgical bone sarcoma resection and reconstruction with a mega prosthesis and a subsequent treatment for a deep periprosthetic infection, at one of three sarcoma centres in Sweden, were enrolled post-completion of sarcoma and infection therapies. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews, verbatim transcribed, and analyzed using a qualitative phenomenological method. The interviews were conducted from November 2022 to November 2023. Results: Eight interviews, lasting 33 to 68 minutes, were conducted. Seven participants (three females) with a mean age of 29 years (22 to 59), were interviewed once. One participant experienced a reinfection, necessitating a second interview. The study's findings indicate that participants lacked awareness of periprosthetic infection risk and severity, with concerns regarding tumour recurrence outweighing these risks. Infection treatment was described as more tolerable than the tumour treatment. Despite positive previous encounters with medical personnel, the hospital, the same as for the cancer treatment, evoked negative emotional responses. All participants reported a decline in joint function post-infection compared with pre-infection, and all experienced changes in their self-perception. Conclusion: Improvements are needed in the communication of potential complications related to bone reconstruction; patients exhibit significant anxiety regarding tumour recurrence; and the patient's relationship with medical personnel and family significantly influences their ability to manage further extensive medical treatment.
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.