ArticleJournal of surgical oncology2026
Comparison of Proximal Tibial Endoprosthetic and Allograft-Prosthetic Reconstruction.
Article in Journal of surgical oncology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe proximal tibia is a common location for bone tumors. Two contemporary reconstruction techniques for limb salvage are endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) and allograft-prosthesis composite (APC). This study aimed to compare the long-term oncologic and functional outcomes of EPR and APC reconstructions.
methodsThirty-eight (19 APC and 19 EPR) patients underwent oncologic proximal tibia resection and reconstruction were reviewed. Patients undergoing APC reconstruction were younger than the EPR group (31 vs. 44 years, p = 0.049), and patients in the EPR group were more likely to have a diagnosis of metastatic disease (32% vs. 0%, p = 0.019).
resultsFor all patients, the 10-year disease-specific survival was 63%. With death a competing risk, there was no difference in the 10-year cumulative risk of failure (41% vs. 26%, p = 0.171) or amputation (11% vs. 19%, p = 0.690) between APC or EPR. There was no difference comparing EPR to APC in the proportion of patients with an extensor lag > 10° (42% vs. 26%, p = 0.495) or 10-year knee society scores (85 vs. 85, p = 0.710).
conclusionEPR and APC have a similar complication profile and functional outcomes following proximal tibial resection and 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.