Table 4 Comparison of current study results with those of other studies involving intercalary endoprostheses
Author, year | Case number | Average age (years) | Treatment | Complication | Mean follow-up time (months) | Mean MSTS (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dijkstra et al. [15], 1996 | 38 | 65 | IMN (18) | Fracture: 1 Instability: 2 | / | / |
PF (20) | Wound problem: 2 Nerve injury: 1 Local recurrence: 1 | / | / | |||
Ofluoglu et al. [9], 2009 | 24 | 63 | IMN | Loosening: 2 | / | / |
Sarahrudi et al. [28], 2009 | 41 | 66.3 | IMN (19) | Instability: 2 Tumor progression: 1 | / | / |
70.2 | PF (22) | RNI: 4 Fracture: 1 Loosening: 1 | / | / | ||
Ruggieri et al. [36], 2011 | 8 | / | Prosthesis | Loosening: 1 | 25 | 90 |
McGrath et al. [8], 2011 | 13 | 35 | Endoprosthesis | Local recurrence: 2 Loosening: 4 Fracture: 2 Nerve injury: 2 | 57 | 77 |
Laitinen et al. [35], 2011 | 40 | 65 | IMN | 7 (18%) | / | 70/68 |
Wedin et al. [34], 2012 | 128 | / | IMN (117) | Fracture: 1 Nonunion: 5 Infection: 2 | / | / |
/ | PF (11) | Fracture: 2 | / | / | ||
Benevenia et al. [13], 2016 | 18 | 69 | Prosthesis | None | 10 | 83 |
Zhao et al. [19], 2018 | 9 | 63 | Prosthesis | RNI: 1 Aseptic loosening: 1 | 9 | 85 |
Casadei et al. [14], 2018 | 12 | 67 | IMN | Infection: 1 Local recurrence: 1 Loosening: 2 | / | 63 |
Zheng et al. [20], 2019 | 13 | / | Prosthesis | RNI: 2 Aseptic loosening: 2 | 11 | 65 |
Current study | 66 | 62 | IMN (16) | Local recurrence: 2 Rotator cuff injury: 1 | 21 | 74 |
61 | PF (33) | RNI: 3 Local recurrence: 3 Screw break: 1 | 18 | 76 | ||
63 | Prosthesis (17) | Local recurrence: 1 Aseptic loosening: 1 | 28 | 77 |