Long-term clinical outcomes of modular endoprosthetic reconstruction for primary bone tumours of the proximal femur.

P T J Sanders, S F van de Vusse, M P A Bus, M Fiocco, J A M Bramer, G R Schaap, M A J van de Sande, P D S Dijkstra

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bone 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.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

P T J SandersLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden, the Netherlands.

S F van de VusseLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden, the Netherlands.

M P A BusLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden, the Netherlands.

M FioccoLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Data Science, section Medical Statistics, Leiden, the Netherlands.

J A M BramerPrincess Máxima Center for Paediatric Oncology, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

G R SchaapAcademic Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

M A J van de SandeLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden, the Netherlands.

P D S DijkstraLeiden University Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur is a well-accepted technique in the treatment of bone tumours. However, controversies remain regarding the optimal reconstructive technique. For instance, there is little evidence to support resurfacing of the acetabulum. Our preferred technique during recent years was hemiarthroplasty with a bipolar femoral head and an attachment tube for tendinous reinsertion. Aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of these reconstructions. All consecutive patients in whom a MUTARS® proximal femoral replacement was performed between 1999 and 2023 for a primary bone tumour were retrospectively evaluated, with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Sixty-four patients matched inclusion criteria. Mean age was 52 years (8 to 89). Chondrosarcoma was the predominant diagnosis (

Indexed as

Bipolar hemiarthroplastyBone tumoursEndoprosthetic reconstructionLimb salvage surgeryLong-term outcomesProximal femoral reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID42472056

DOI10.1016/j.jbo.2026.100783

PMCPMC13380013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.