4.7 Article

Trends in Diagnosis and Surgical Treatment of Bone Metastases among Orthopedic Surgeons

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 15, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11154284

Keywords

bone metastases; bone tumor; trends in treatment; diagnosis; survey; orthopedic oncology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Experience, place of work, and the number of surgeries performed may affect the choice of treatment method in patients with bone metastases.
Background: The proper diagnosis and treatment of bone metastases are essential for patient survival. However, several strategies for the treatment are practiced. Therefore, the aim of the study was to analyze what factors influence the choice of a method of treatment. Methods: An online survey was conducted within the Polish Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology. It consisted of 45 questions and was divided into four main parts: Participant Characteristics, Diagnosis and Qualification, Treatment, and Clinical Cases. Results: A total number of 104 responses were collected. The most frequently chosen methods were: Intramedullary nail (IMN) + Resection + Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (30.47%) and IMN without tumor resection (42.13%), and in third place, modular endoprosthesis (17.25%). The less experienced group of orthopedic surgeons more often (47.5% vs. 39.5%) decided to perform IMN without tumor resection than the more experienced group (p = 0.046). Surgeons from district hospitals less frequently (13.7% vs. 23.1%) would decide to use modular endoprosthesis than surgeons from university hospitals (p = 0.000076). Orthopedists who performed >= 11 bone metastases surgeries per year would more often use modular endoprosthesis (34.8% vs. 13.2%) than those who performed <= 10 operations per year (p = 0.000114). Conclusion: Experience, place of work, and the number of metastasis surgeries performed during a year may influence the choice of treatment method in patients with bone metastases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available