ReviewAnnals of medicine2026
Bone defect repair materials after bone tumour resection: from structural substitutes to biofunctionalized synergistic therapy.
Review in Annals of medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCritical-sized bone defects following malignant tumour resection remain among the most difficult challenges in orthopaedic oncology. Conventional substitutes such as autografts or polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) provide initial stability but often fail to ensure durable integration or prevent recurrence. This review aims to summarize recent progress in bone defect reconstruction materials, with particular attention to strategies that unite structural reliability with biological functionality. DISCUSSION: Over the past decade, repair materials have evolved from inert fillers to multifunctional scaffolds capable of combining load-bearing support with local therapeutic action. Current designs integrate chemotherapy, photothermal hyperthermia or magnetic hyperthermia, immunomodulation, antibacterial function, and angiogenic-osteogenic cues. Intelligent drug delivery systems and additive manufacturing enable patient-specific, stimuli-responsive implants, while early clinical use of antibiotic-loaded cements and custom-printed prostheses demonstrates translational potential. Nevertheless, most evidence remains preclinical and heterogeneous, with inconsistent tumour, infection, regeneration, and safety endpoints; long-term safety, manufacturing reproducibility, cost-effectiveness, and regulatory acceptance remain unresolved.
conclusionsReconstruction after bone tumour resection is entering a new era in which implants are expected not only to restore anatomy and stability but also to actively suppress tumour recurrence and foster regeneration. Multifunctional and patient-tailored scaffolds hold promise to redefine limb-salvage surgery, provided that future work delivers robust clinical validation and scalable manufacturing pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.