同种异体复合假体与巨型假体在肿瘤切除后肱骨近端重建中的应用:临床结果的荟萃分析。

IF 1.7 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Mohammad Daher, Mohamad Y Fares, Steve S Gill, Peter Boufadel, Andrew R Jensen, William C Eward, Adam Z Khan, John G Horneff, Joseph A Abboud
{"title":"同种异体复合假体与巨型假体在肿瘤切除后肱骨近端重建中的应用:临床结果的荟萃分析。","authors":"Mohammad Daher, Mohamad Y Fares, Steve S Gill, Peter Boufadel, Andrew R Jensen, William C Eward, Adam Z Khan, John G Horneff, Joseph A Abboud","doi":"10.5397/cise.2025.00388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allograft prosthetic composite (APC) and megaprosthesis (MP) have both been used to reconstruct the proximal humerus after its resection due to primary or secondary tumors. However, varied results have been reported in the literature with no consensus on which reconstruction has better overall outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were queried through September 2024. The compared outcomes consisted of adverse events, patient-reported outcomes measures, and range of motion. Ten studies and 400 patients were included, with 115 in the APC group and 285 in the MP group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The APC group had a higher rate of reoperations (odds ratio, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.40-4.45; P=0.002) than did the MP group over an average follow-up of 7.0 years. However, better postoperative flexion (mean difference, 10.11; 95% CI, 5.33-14.90; P<0.001) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores (mean difference, 3.73; 95% CI, 1.37- 6.08; P=0.002) were seen in the APC group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present study shows a lower rate of revision with the use of MP but better functional outcomes and forward flexion with APC as the surgical option for proximal humerus reconstruction. Level of evidence: III.</p>","PeriodicalId":33981,"journal":{"name":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12415450/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Allograft-prosthetic composite versus megaprosthesis for proximal humerus reconstruction after tumor resection: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Daher, Mohamad Y Fares, Steve S Gill, Peter Boufadel, Andrew R Jensen, William C Eward, Adam Z Khan, John G Horneff, Joseph A Abboud\",\"doi\":\"10.5397/cise.2025.00388\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allograft prosthetic composite (APC) and megaprosthesis (MP) have both been used to reconstruct the proximal humerus after its resection due to primary or secondary tumors. However, varied results have been reported in the literature with no consensus on which reconstruction has better overall outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were queried through September 2024. The compared outcomes consisted of adverse events, patient-reported outcomes measures, and range of motion. Ten studies and 400 patients were included, with 115 in the APC group and 285 in the MP group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The APC group had a higher rate of reoperations (odds ratio, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.40-4.45; P=0.002) than did the MP group over an average follow-up of 7.0 years. However, better postoperative flexion (mean difference, 10.11; 95% CI, 5.33-14.90; P<0.001) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores (mean difference, 3.73; 95% CI, 1.37- 6.08; P=0.002) were seen in the APC group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The present study shows a lower rate of revision with the use of MP but better functional outcomes and forward flexion with APC as the surgical option for proximal humerus reconstruction. Level of evidence: III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":33981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12415450/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2025.00388\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics in Shoulder and Elbow","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5397/cise.2025.00388","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:同种异体复合假体(APC)和巨型假体(MP)都被用于肱骨近端因原发性或继发性肿瘤切除后的重建。然而,文献中报道了不同的结果,对于哪一种重建具有更好的总体结果没有达成共识。方法:检索PubMed、Cochrane和谷歌Scholar (page 1-20),检索时间截止到2024年9月。比较的结果包括不良事件、患者报告的结果测量和活动范围。纳入10项研究和400例患者,其中APC组115例,MP组285例。结果:APC组再手术率较高(优势比2.50;95% ci, 1.40-4.45;P=0.002),在平均随访7年期间,MP组比MP组更明显。但术后屈曲较好(平均差10.11;95% ci, 5.33-14.90;结论:本研究显示,使用MP修复率较低,但功能效果较好,并将APC前屈作为肱骨近端重建的手术选择。证据水平:III。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Allograft-prosthetic composite versus megaprosthesis for proximal humerus reconstruction after tumor resection: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.

Allograft-prosthetic composite versus megaprosthesis for proximal humerus reconstruction after tumor resection: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.

Allograft-prosthetic composite versus megaprosthesis for proximal humerus reconstruction after tumor resection: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.

Allograft-prosthetic composite versus megaprosthesis for proximal humerus reconstruction after tumor resection: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.

Background: Allograft prosthetic composite (APC) and megaprosthesis (MP) have both been used to reconstruct the proximal humerus after its resection due to primary or secondary tumors. However, varied results have been reported in the literature with no consensus on which reconstruction has better overall outcomes.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) were queried through September 2024. The compared outcomes consisted of adverse events, patient-reported outcomes measures, and range of motion. Ten studies and 400 patients were included, with 115 in the APC group and 285 in the MP group.

Results: The APC group had a higher rate of reoperations (odds ratio, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.40-4.45; P=0.002) than did the MP group over an average follow-up of 7.0 years. However, better postoperative flexion (mean difference, 10.11; 95% CI, 5.33-14.90; P<0.001) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores (mean difference, 3.73; 95% CI, 1.37- 6.08; P=0.002) were seen in the APC group.

Conclusions: The present study shows a lower rate of revision with the use of MP but better functional outcomes and forward flexion with APC as the surgical option for proximal humerus reconstruction. Level of evidence: III.

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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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