SHOULDER RECONSTRUCTION FOLLOWING RESECTION OF BONE TUMOURS

Abstract

Introduction Structure, position, strength, function and durability are critical following reconstruction after treatment of bone tumours. We aimed to assess performance and make recommendations in relation to shoulder reconstruction.

Methods Shoulder reconstruction following resection of bone tumours of the shoulder girdle was evaluated for thirty-two patients treated from 1987 to 2002. Several kinds of reconstructive procedures were performed and classified according to the system of the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society. Fourteen patients had an osteosarcoma, ten patients had a chondrosarcoma, four patients had an Ewings sarcoma and four had an extensive giant-cell tumour. The choice of reconstruction depended on the type of resection and the needs of the patient. The functional results were assessed and graded quantitatively according to the functional rating system of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. The average duration of follow-up was 75 months for the 23 patients who were still alive at the time of the latest follow-up examination.

Results Nine patients died of malignancy (four patients with surgical stage III disease and one with Paget’s osteosarcoma); these patients had an average 18 months follow-up post-operatively. The resection was classified as wide in 27 of 32 patients and as marginal in five. Two patients had local recurrence. Functional results were related to the type of resection and the method of shoulder reconstruction. In patients where the deltoid and rotator cuff could be preserved, allograft-prosthetic composite had better function than prosthesis alone after intra-articular resection of the humerus because reconstruction of the deltoid and the rotator cuff could be performed incorporating the allograft. After intra-articular resection of the proximal humerus with loss of the abductor mechanism, arthrodesis resulted in good function and more strength than was found after reconstruction with prosthesis or allograft-prosthetic composite. A secondary arthrodesis was performed in two patients with symptomatic instability following failed reconstruction with an allograft-prosthetic composite or an osteoarticular allograft. Insertion of an allograft, a vascularized fibular graft, a rotational latissimus dorsi flap and cancellous autograft bone was the preferred arthrodesis technique to achieve fusion as well as to reduce complications. There was one fracture and one infection in 10 patients. After extra-articular resection of the glenoid cavity and the proximal humerus with abductor mechanism, reconstruction with a functional spacer frequently resulted in superior subluxation of the implant and only fair function of the shoulder. With two teen-aged patients, a free fibular graft inserted after intra-articular resection of the proximal humerus led to fair function, to be followed by secondary arthrodesis when growth is complete. After resection of the acromion-glenoid cavity complex in one patient and the entire scapula in a child, no reconstruction resulted in good function of the shoulder.

Conclusions Indications for the method of reconstruction depend on type of resection, age, gender, occupation, the expected functional level and restriction of activity. After resection of the abductor mechanism, arthrodesis resulted in more strength and capacity to position the arm in space. It was suitable for the young. Allograft-prosthetic composite showed better function when the abductor mechanism had been reconstructed. Prostheses should be used in old patients or for palliative surgical treatment after resection the abductor mechanism. The most durable and functional reconstruction was arthrodesis.