ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Is delayed three-month re-excision safe for patients who have undergone unplanned excision of soft tissue sarcomas?
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal timing for systematic re-excision following the unplanned excision (UE) of soft tissue sarcomas (STS) remains controversial. This study evaluated the impact of delayed versus immediate re-excision on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS).
methodsWe retrospectively analysed patients who underwent re-excision for primary STS following UE between August 2011 and February 2019. Patients with metastasis at presentation or a follow-up of less than two years were excluded. The cohort was stratified into an early re-excision (RE) group (≤ 3 months from initial UE) and a late RE group (> 3 months). The LRFS, PFS, OS, and the extent of excision were assessed.
resultsA total of 104 patients met the inclusion criteria of this study, including 74 cases in the early RE group and 30 cases in the late RE group. At a mean follow-up of 61.0 ± 20.5 months, the 5-year OS was 86.5% and 88.1% in the early RE group and the late RE group, respectively (P=0.501). No significant differences were observed in 5-year LRFS (98.9% vs. 88.8%, P=0.168) or 5-year MRFS (88.6% vs. 81.9%, P=0.764). For a subset of 12 patients in the late RE group who underwent serial MRI, the median maximum edema diameter decreased significantly from 93.8 mm at the initial visit to 54.9 mm prior to delayed re-excision (P=0.001)
conclusionsDelayed re-excision beyond three months did not negatively impact recurrence or survival rates compared to immediate intervention. Furthermore, this delayed approach allows postoperative edema to subside, potentially reducing the required extent of resection and the subsequent need for complex flap reconstruction.
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.