↓ Skip to main content

Does Wrist Arthrodesis With Structural Iliac Crest Bone Graft After Wide Resection of Distal Radius Giant Cell Tumor Result in Satisfactory Function and Local Control?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Does Wrist Arthrodesis With Structural Iliac Crest Bone Graft After Wide Resection of Distal Radius Giant Cell Tumor Result in Satisfactory Function and Local Control?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-015-4678-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tao Wang, Chung Ming Chan, Feng Yu, Yuan Li, Xiaohui Niu

Abstract

Many techniques have been described for reconstruction after distal radius resection for giant cell tumor with none being clearly superior. The favored technique at our institution is total wrist fusion with autogenous nonvascularized structural iliac crest bone graft because it is structurally robust, avoids the complications associated with obtaining autologous fibula graft, and is useful in areas where bone banks are not available. However, the success of arthrodesis and the functional outcomes with this approach, to our knowledge, have only been limitedly reported. (1) What is the success of union of these grafts and how long does it take? (2) How effective is the technique in achieving tumor control? (3) What complications occur with this type of arthrodesis? (4) What are the functional results of wrist arthrodesis by this technique for treating giant cell tumor of the distal radius? Between 2005 and 2013, 48 patients were treated for biopsy-confirmed Campanacci Grade III giant cell tumor of the distal radius. Of those, 39 (81% [39 of 48]) were treated with wrist arthrodesis using autogenous nonvascularized iliac crest bone graft. Of those, 27 (69% [27 of 39]) were available for followup at a minimum of 24 months (mean, 45 months; range, 24-103 months). During that period, the general indications for this approach were Campanacci Grade III and estimated resection length of 8 cm or less. Followup included clinical and radiographic assessment and functional assessment using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, grip strength, and range of motion at every followup by the treating surgeon and his team. All functional results were from the latest followup of each patient. Union of the distal junction occurred at a mean of 4 months (± 2 months) and union of the proximal junction occurred at a mean of 9 months (± 5 months). Accounting for competing events, at 12 months, the rate of proximal junction union was 56% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35%-72%), whereas it was 67% (95% CI, 45%-82%) at 18 months. In total, 11 of the 27 patients (41%) underwent repeat surgery on the distal radius, including eight patients (30%) who had complications and three (11%) who had local recurrence. The mean DASH score was 9 (± 7) (value range, 0-100, with lower scores representing better function), and the mean MSTS 1987 score was 29 (± 1) (value range, 0-30, with higher scores representing better function) as well as 96% (± 4%) of mean MSTS 1993 score (value range, 0%-100%, with higher scores representing better function). The mean grip strength was 51% (± 23%) of the uninvolved side, whereas the mean arc of forearm rotation was 113° (± 49°). Reconstruction of defects after resection of giant cell tumor of the distal radius with autogenous structural iliac crest bone graft is a facile technique that can be used to achieve favorable functional results with complications and recurrences comparable to those of other reported techniques. We cannot show that this technique is superior to other options, but it seems to be a reasonable option to consider when other reconstruction options such as allografts are not available. Level IV, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 15%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 22 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Computer Science 2 3%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 27 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 June 2018.
All research outputs
#14,256,180
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#4,308
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,928
of 399,776 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#47
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 399,776 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.