2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.recote.2019.04.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modular prosthesis reconstruction after tumour resection, evaluation of failures and survival

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 28 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…After screening title and abstract, 36 studies were eligible for full-text screening. Of these 36 studies, 10 were excluded for wrong population (an anatomical endoprosthesis was used instead of a reverse megaprosthesis 4 , 9 , 22 , 34 , 35 , 48 , 54 , 58 , 59 , 64 ), 7 studies were excluded for wrong intervention (surgical technique that used extracorporeal irradiated bone autograft, 15 , 16 , 66 a specific soft-tissue reconstruction, 1 or a constrained reverse prosthesis was implanted 2 , 12 , 38 ), 6 studies were excluded for wrong outcomes (3 studies did not report functional outcomes, 25 , 56 , 60 1 did not clearly report functional outcomes, 23 and 2 only reported MSTS 8 , 65 ), and 1 study was excluded because of a wrong design (review 10 ). Of 3 studies, no full text was available.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After screening title and abstract, 36 studies were eligible for full-text screening. Of these 36 studies, 10 were excluded for wrong population (an anatomical endoprosthesis was used instead of a reverse megaprosthesis 4 , 9 , 22 , 34 , 35 , 48 , 54 , 58 , 59 , 64 ), 7 studies were excluded for wrong intervention (surgical technique that used extracorporeal irradiated bone autograft, 15 , 16 , 66 a specific soft-tissue reconstruction, 1 or a constrained reverse prosthesis was implanted 2 , 12 , 38 ), 6 studies were excluded for wrong outcomes (3 studies did not report functional outcomes, 25 , 56 , 60 1 did not clearly report functional outcomes, 23 and 2 only reported MSTS 8 , 65 ), and 1 study was excluded because of a wrong design (review 10 ). Of 3 studies, no full text was available.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%