ArticleJournal of bone oncology2026
Endoprosthetic reconstruction versus osteosynthesis for metastatic disease of the proximal femur: a population-based cohort study.
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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare implant failure, revision surgery, and overall patient survival following endoprosthetic reconstruction versus osteosynthesis in patients undergoing surgery for metastatic bone disease of the proximal femur (MBDf). Methods: This population-based cohort study included all patients treated surgically for MBDf at six institutions in the Greater Copenhagen area, Denmark, between 2013 and 2019. Implant failure and revision surgery were analysed using competing risk models, with death treated as a competing event. Overall survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: A total of 281 patients were included, of whom 81 underwent osteosynthesis and 200 underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction. Implant failure was more frequent following osteosynthesis than endoprosthetic reconstruction, with cumulative incidences of 5% (CI 0.2 to 10), versus 0.5% (CI 0 to 1.5) at three months, 7% (CI 2 to 13) versus 0.5% (CI 0 to 1.5) at six months, and 7% (CI 2 to 13) versus 1% (CI 0 to 2.4) at twelve months. Revision surgery rates were comparable between the groups with cumulative incidences of 5% (95% CI 0.2-10) versus 3% (95% CI 0.6-5) at three months, 7% (95% CI 2-13) versus 4% (95% CI 1-6) at six months, and 9% (95% CI 3-15) versus 4% (95% CI 2-7) at twelve months. Overall survival was lower in patients treated with osteosynthesis compared with endoprosthetic reconstruction ( Conclusion: Endoprosthetic reconstruction is superior in terms of risk of implant failure compared to osteosynthesis in patients treated for MBDf, but no difference was found in overall revision risk.
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.