Table 2. Review of Literature.
| Mode of reconstruction | Study | No. | Persistent pain | Function | Recurrence | Additional operation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prosthesis | Bickels et al. (2005)17) | 18 | 0 | Satisfactory: 15 (83%) | No | ND |
| Thai et al. (2006)6) | 22 | 3 (13%) | Restriction: 8 (36%) | No | 1 | |
| Camnasio et al. (2008)5) | 36 | 0 | Good: 11 (30.6%) | 12% | ND | |
| Piccioli et al. (2010)18) | 26 | 0 | MSTS score: 67.8% | 3 (11.5%) | ND | |
| Plate | Siegel et al. (2010)7) | 32 | 5 (14%) | Return to work: 22 (69%) | 4 (12.5%) | 4 |
| IM nail | This study | 32 | 1 (3.1%) | Good (ROM < 100°): 30 (94%) | 0 | 0 |
ND: not done, MSTS: Musculoskeletal Tumor Society rating scale, IM: intramedullary, ROM: range of motion.