ArticleSICOT-J2025
Outcome of surgical treatment for metastatic bone disease of the distal femur: Observational single-center study of 47 patients.
Article in SICOT-J, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is a paucity of data regarding the surgical treatment of distal femoral metastatic lesions. In this retrospective study, we aim to describe the outcome of surgery in this location and further analyze the findings based on the type of surgical reconstruction.
methods47 patients (48 fractures) who underwent surgery due to pathological fractures of the distal third of the femur, between 2000 and 2024, were included in the analysis. There were 29 prostheses and 19 osteosyntheses (10 plates, 9 nails). Local complications, implant revision rate, functional outcome regarding pain and ambulatory capacity, and overall survival were analyzed depending on the type of surgical treatment.
resultsThe complication pattern was different among implants used, with severe infections seen in prostheses (3/29 implants) and tumor recurrence in osteosynthesis (2/19 implants). In cases of osteosynthesis, failures resulting in revision surgery were documented only in cases of plate reconstruction (none when nails were used), resulting in a marginally higher revision rate (p = 0.14). Surgical treatment resulted in the restoration of the ambulatory capacity in 85% of patients, and pain levels were minor or moderate in 93%, without any significant difference between the surgical methods. Prostheses were used in patients with better overall survival (p = 0.015). DISCUSSION: The patterns of local complications and their management differed between the different reconstruction techniques. Plate osteosynthesis had the highest risk for re-operation. The overall postoperative result was satisfactory, and functional outcomes were generally comparable. Patients with a good prognosis should be considered for reconstruction with a prosthesis when the bone quality does not allow nail osteosynthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study.
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.