Proximal Humerus Reconstruction after Tumor Resection: An Overview of Surgical Management

Table 2

Summary data for autograft studies.

Study	Resection (cm)	Graft type	N	Age (y)	F-U (m)	Hardware issues	Fractures	Infections	PSA	Failures	MSTS score
Kumar et al. [61]	14	(Arthrodesis) FVFG	4	24	51	4% (1)	0	4% (1)	0	0	—
Mimata et al. [62]	—	(Arthrodesis) FVFG	5	21	75	0	40% (2)	0	0	0	21.4
Bilgin [63]	—	FVFG	9	38	60	22% (2)	11% (1)	11% (1)	0	0	24
Manfrini et al. [64]	13	FVFG	11	5	110	0	64% (7)	9% (1)			22.9
Wada et al. [14]	20	FVFG	8	27	70	0	0	0	12% (1)	12% (1)	23.7
Li et al. [65]	—	Allograft + FVGF	6	16	19	0	0	0	0	0	28
Liu et al. [29]	—	TBIR + FVFG	16	32	62	0	6% (1)	0	25% (4)	25% (4)	19
Amin and Ebeid [66]	14	Scapular pillar autograft	16	21	36	0	0	0	12% (2)	12% (2)	22.5
Padiolleau et al. [67]	12	Scapular pillar autograft	12	36	59	0	0	0	25% (3)	25% (3)	21.3
Barbier et al. [68]	9	CPH autograft	7	8–18	40	14% (1)	29% (2)	0	71% (5)	71% (5)	21.7
Calvert et al. [69]	14	CPH autograft	4	6	43	0	0	0	50% (2)	50% (2)	26-27
Kitagawa et al. [27]	—	CPH autograft	7	29	18	0	0	0	0	0	21.5
Rödl et al. [28]	—	CPH autograft	15	18	59	0	22% (4)	22% (4)	22% (4)	22% (4)	24.6
Tsukushi et al. [70]	—	CPH autograft	7	36	26	14% (1)	0	0	0	0	20.7

N, patients’ number; F-U, follow-up; PSA, pseudoarthrosis (nonunion/severe union delay); FVFG, free vascularized fibular graft; CPH, clavicula pro humero.