SCIRP Mobile Website
Paper Submission

Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.

 

Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
   
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations

More>>

Selek, H., Basarir, K., Yildiz, Y., et al. (2008) Cemented Endoprosthetic Replacement for Metastatic Bone Disease in the Proximal Femur. Journal of Arthroplasty, 23, 112-117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.11.016

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Efficiency and Advantages of Percutaneous Femoroplasty versus Proximal Femoral Replacement for Proximal Femur Metastases

    AUTHORS: Jinming Zhang, Jianfa Xu, Ze Li, Xiaoyu Zhang, Hongzeng Wu, Helin Feng

    KEYWORDS: Percutaneous Femoroplasty, Proximal Femoral Replacement, Bone Metastasis, Proximal

    JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Orthopedics, Vol.8 No.10, September 30, 2018

    ABSTRACT: Background: The proximal femur is the most common site of bone metastasis, and metastasis at this site can cause chronic, intolerable pain and even result in pathologic fractures, thereby negatively affecting patients’ quality of life. Selecting an appropriate method for resecting metastasis within the proximal femur requires thorough consideration of various factors, including the biological behavior of the primary tumor, the extent of the femur lesion, the current general systemic condition of the patient, and perioperative risks. Objective: To compare the perioperative safety of and early functional recovery following percutaneous femoroplasty (PFP) and proximal femoral replacement (PFR) in treating patients with metastasis of the proximal femur. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the cases of 53 patients with proximal femur metastases who received surgical treatment by either PFP (n = 28) or PFR (n = 25). Perioperative blood loss, surgical time, and perioperative complications were compared between groups. Pain intensity according to the visual analogue scale (VAS) and early postoperative function according to the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) were evaluated at 3, 7, and 30 days as well as 6 months after surgical treatment. Results: In the PFP group, the VAS scores were lower soon after operation than preoperation (P 0.05). PFP significantly and immediately improved patients’ quality of life as measured by the KPS in the early period after surgery (preoperative vs 3 days postoperative, P