↓ Skip to main content

Is It Appropriate to Treat Sarcoma Metastases With Intramedullary Nailing?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Is It Appropriate to Treat Sarcoma Metastases With Intramedullary Nailing?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-5069-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bryan S Moon, Dwayne J Dunbar, Patrick P Lin, Robert L Satcher, Justin E Bird, Valerae O Lewis

Abstract

Patients with primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma are at risk for skeletal metastases. Although uncommon, these metastases can result in impending or pathologic fractures. Intramedullary nailing traditionally has been an accepted form of palliative treatment for patients with metastatic carcinoma, but we could find no studies that report specifically on intramedullary nailing of metastatic sarcoma lesions. We asked: (1) What is the survival of patients with an impending or pathologic fracture from a sarcoma metastasis? (2) What proportion of patients treated with intramedullary nailing subsequently underwent a revision procedure or nail removal during their lifetimes? Between 1996 and 2014, we performed 40 intramedullary nailing procedures in 34 patients with multifocal metastases from sarcomas who showed signs or symptoms of impending fracture or who presented with a pathologic fracture. All of these patients are accounted for, either through the time of death or to the present, and all are included at a mean of 13 months (range, 0.3-86 months) in this retrospective study. During the study period, we generally applied the same surgical indications for patients with nailing of metastatic sarcoma lesions as we did for patients with metastatic carcinoma; in general, we used intramedullary nailing (with or without cement) rather than resection for diaphyseal lesions with less cortical destruction and no substantial soft tissue mass or metadiaphyseal lesions that could be adequately supplemented with cementation. The goal was to use this approach when it would allow immediate weightbearing, or in patients whose medical conditions were such that a more-extensive procedure seemed unsafe. During the same period, an additional 58 patients underwent resection procedures for metastatic sarcomas to long bones because they either did not meet the above indications, had a solitary resectable metastasis, or because of surgeon preference; these patients were excluded from this study. The median age of the patients was 52 years (range, 27-81 years). Eleven patients with 11 impending or pathologic fractures were documented to have received either preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy and 29 patients received some form of chemotherapy. Thirty (88%) patients died during the period of observation, at a median of 5 months (range, 0.3-80 months) after surgery. Twenty-nine patients (85%) underwent no additional surgery and retained their original intramedullary nail. One patient (3%) underwent nail removal for infection, and four patients (12%) underwent further surgical revision secondary to local progression. Patients with an impending or pathologic fracture from multifocal metastatic sarcoma to a long bone have a dismal prognosis, but they may gain short-term benefit from surgical fixation with the goal of reducing pain and maintaining mobility. Although we have no group for comparison, such as treating with radiotherapy alone or resection and an endoprosthesis, our findings suggest that use of intramedullary nails is helpful for providing fixation that in most instances lasts for the lifetime of patients with multifocal bone metastases from sarcomas. Level IV, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 14%
Other 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 November 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,586
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,216
of 317,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#60
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.