Table 2 Comparison of the results obtained between different studies
Authors (year) | N | Surgery | Follow-up (yr) | Flex (°) | Strength (0–5) | TESS (%) | TUG (sec) | 6mWT (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ginsberg, 2007 [7] | 41 | Limb sparing femur | 4.29 (2.98) | 86.4 (9.9) | 6.6 (2.1) | |||
24 | Limb sparing tibia | 88.1 (9.3) | 6.0 (1.2) | |||||
Henderson, 2012 [11] | 12 | Distal femur | 4 (2–12) | 98 (36) | ||||
3 | Proximal tibia | 105 (18) | ||||||
Carty, 2009 [10] | 20 | Limb salvage | 7.5 (5.1) | 125 (80–140) | 4.15 (2–5) | 86 (3.5) | ||
Bekkering, 2011 [9] | 15 | Knee endoprosthesis | 2.3 (1.5) | 7.2 (1.6) | 471 (75) | |||
Bekkering, 2012 [8] | 4 | Limb salvage and ablative | 1 | 85 (2.4) | 430 (18) | |||
Current Study | 22 | Knee endoprosthesis | 1 | 110 (70–150) | 4.0 (1.5–5.0) | 85 (11.3) | 7.1(1.8) | 450 (47.5) |