ReviewCancers2026
Outcomes of Percutaneous Stabilization for Pelvic Metastatic Bone Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesMetastatic bone disease (MBD) of the pelvis is commonly managed with open reconstruction despite substantial morbidity and high complication rates ranging from 16-32%. Percutaneous fixation techniques have emerged as a lower morbidity alternative; however, robust evaluations of outcomes remain limited. Therefore, the primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate changes in pain and function following percutaneous fixation for pelvic MBD, and to determine the complication and reoperation rates of these procedures.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception through 15 May 2025. Studies evaluating percutaneous fixation for pelvic MBD in adults were included. Pooled estimates of visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores, complication rates, and reoperation rates were generated using meta-analysis techniques.
resultsTwenty-five studies were included in the final analysis. VAS pain scores were reported in 15 studies, with an average decrease of 5.0 points (95% CI: 3.9-6.1) from pre- to postoperative. ECOG performance status scores were reported in 8 studies, with an average improvement of 1.1 points (95% CI: 0.7-1.5) from pre- to postoperative. Complications were reported in 24 studies, with a pooled complication rate of 8% (95% CI: 6-12%) and reoperation rate of 4% (95% CI: 2-7%).
conclusionsPercutaneous fixation for pelvic MBD provides meaningful improvements in pain and function with relatively low complication rates. However, substantial study heterogeneity exists in the patient population, surgical techniques, and implant selection, reflecting the novelty of this treatment strategy and the absence of standardized guidelines.
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.