股骨近端转移性病变的外科治疗:系统回顾。

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Efort Open Reviews Pub Date : 2025-02-03 Print Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1530/EOR-24-0138
Afrim Iljazi, Mads Sten Andersen, Stig Brorson, Michael Mørk Petersen, Michala Skovlund Sørensen
{"title":"股骨近端转移性病变的外科治疗:系统回顾。","authors":"Afrim Iljazi, Mads Sten Andersen, Stig Brorson, Michael Mørk Petersen, Michala Skovlund Sørensen","doi":"10.1530/EOR-24-0138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The proximal femur is a frequent site of cancer dissemination in the extremities. Patients treated surgically for skeletal metastases have poorer overall health compared to other orthopedic patients, with only one-third expected to survive two years post-surgery. Choosing a treatment that minimizes revision risk and ensures the implant outlives the patient is therefore crucial. We conducted a systematic review to assess the revision rate following internal fixation (IF) or endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) of the proximal femur for metastatic bone disease (MBD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase were searched, identifying 10,299 records. After removing duplicates, 7731 unique records were screened, 334 of which were retrieved for full-text screening. We included 34 studies in the qualitative synthesis. The MINORS instrument was used for quality assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The quality of the included studies was low to moderate, with median scores of 6/16 for non-comparative studies and 10/24 for comparative studies. We therefore refrained from a comparative analysis. Revision rates varied between 0 and 12.4% following EPR (25 studies) and between 0 and 26.7% following IF, while implant removal rates ranged between 0 and 8.3% and 0 and 26.7%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Revision and implant removal rates for various methods of EPR and IF are satisfactory. However, a meta-analysis or comparison between IF and EPR is not feasible due to a lack of prospective studies, randomized trials and high-quality studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":48598,"journal":{"name":"Efort Open Reviews","volume":"10 2","pages":"104-114"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11825154/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surgical management of metastatic lesions in the proximal femur: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Afrim Iljazi, Mads Sten Andersen, Stig Brorson, Michael Mørk Petersen, Michala Skovlund Sørensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1530/EOR-24-0138\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The proximal femur is a frequent site of cancer dissemination in the extremities. Patients treated surgically for skeletal metastases have poorer overall health compared to other orthopedic patients, with only one-third expected to survive two years post-surgery. Choosing a treatment that minimizes revision risk and ensures the implant outlives the patient is therefore crucial. We conducted a systematic review to assess the revision rate following internal fixation (IF) or endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) of the proximal femur for metastatic bone disease (MBD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase were searched, identifying 10,299 records. After removing duplicates, 7731 unique records were screened, 334 of which were retrieved for full-text screening. We included 34 studies in the qualitative synthesis. The MINORS instrument was used for quality assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The quality of the included studies was low to moderate, with median scores of 6/16 for non-comparative studies and 10/24 for comparative studies. We therefore refrained from a comparative analysis. Revision rates varied between 0 and 12.4% following EPR (25 studies) and between 0 and 26.7% following IF, while implant removal rates ranged between 0 and 8.3% and 0 and 26.7%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Revision and implant removal rates for various methods of EPR and IF are satisfactory. However, a meta-analysis or comparison between IF and EPR is not feasible due to a lack of prospective studies, randomized trials and high-quality studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48598,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Efort Open Reviews\",\"volume\":\"10 2\",\"pages\":\"104-114\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11825154/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Efort Open Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-24-0138\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Efort Open Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-24-0138","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:股骨近端是四肢肿瘤扩散的常见部位。与其他骨科患者相比,接受手术治疗的骨骼转移患者的整体健康状况较差,只有三分之一的患者预计在术后两年内存活。因此,选择一种治疗方法,使翻修风险最小化,并确保种植体比患者寿命更长是至关重要的。我们进行了一项系统综述,以评估转移性骨病(MBD)股骨近端内固定(IF)或假体内重建(EPR)后的翻修率。方法:本研究遵循PRISMA指南。检索了MEDLINE和Embase,确定了10,299条记录。删除重复项后,筛选了7731条唯一记录,其中334条被检索用于全文筛选。我们在定性综合中纳入了34项研究。使用未成年人仪器进行质量评价。结果:纳入的研究质量为低至中等,非比较研究的中位评分为6/16,比较研究的中位评分为10/24。因此,我们没有进行比较分析。EPR的翻修率在0 - 12.4%之间(25项研究),IF的翻修率在0 - 26.7%之间,而植入物移除率分别在0 - 8.3%和0 - 26.7%之间。结论:各种EPR和IF方法的修复和拔除率均令人满意。然而,由于缺乏前瞻性研究、随机试验和高质量研究,在IF和EPR之间进行荟萃分析或比较是不可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Surgical management of metastatic lesions in the proximal femur: a systematic review.

Surgical management of metastatic lesions in the proximal femur: a systematic review.

Surgical management of metastatic lesions in the proximal femur: a systematic review.

Purpose: The proximal femur is a frequent site of cancer dissemination in the extremities. Patients treated surgically for skeletal metastases have poorer overall health compared to other orthopedic patients, with only one-third expected to survive two years post-surgery. Choosing a treatment that minimizes revision risk and ensures the implant outlives the patient is therefore crucial. We conducted a systematic review to assess the revision rate following internal fixation (IF) or endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) of the proximal femur for metastatic bone disease (MBD).

Methods: This study adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE and Embase were searched, identifying 10,299 records. After removing duplicates, 7731 unique records were screened, 334 of which were retrieved for full-text screening. We included 34 studies in the qualitative synthesis. The MINORS instrument was used for quality assessment.

Results: The quality of the included studies was low to moderate, with median scores of 6/16 for non-comparative studies and 10/24 for comparative studies. We therefore refrained from a comparative analysis. Revision rates varied between 0 and 12.4% following EPR (25 studies) and between 0 and 26.7% following IF, while implant removal rates ranged between 0 and 8.3% and 0 and 26.7%, respectively.

Conclusions: Revision and implant removal rates for various methods of EPR and IF are satisfactory. However, a meta-analysis or comparison between IF and EPR is not feasible due to a lack of prospective studies, randomized trials and high-quality studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Efort Open Reviews
Efort Open Reviews Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
101
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: EFORT Open Reviews publishes high-quality instructional review articles across the whole field of orthopaedics and traumatology. Commissioned, peer-reviewed articles from international experts summarize current knowledge and practice in orthopaedics, with the aim of providing systematic coverage of the field. All articles undergo rigorous scientific editing to ensure the highest standards of accuracy and clarity. This continuously published online journal is fully open access and will provide integrated CME. It is an authoritative resource for educating trainees and supports practising orthopaedic surgeons in keeping informed about the latest clinical and scientific advances. One print issue containing a selection of papers from the journal will be published each year to coincide with the EFORT Annual Congress. EFORT Open Reviews is the official journal of the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT) and is published in partnership with The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信