The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of custom-made endoprosthetic reconstruction for both tumourous and non-tumourous conditions around the elbow joint. 28 consecutive cases of endoprosthetic elbow reconstruction, performed between 1989 and 2003, were identified using the unit database. There were 12 males and 16 females, with a mean age 48.9 years, (range 14–84). There were 16 cases of malignant tumour (10 primary, 6 secondary), 3 cases of benign tumour (one each of giant cell tumour, osteoblastoma and pigmented villonodular synovitis) and 10 non-oncological cases, (5 cases of fracture, 3 failed total elbow replacements and 1 infected synostosis). A distal humeral prosthesis was used in 16 patients, distal humeral and proximal ulna in 10 patients, proximal ulna with a humeral component in one patient and proximal radial replacement in one patient. Clinical and radiographic review of all available patients, including a functional assessment with The Toronto Extremity Salvage score (TESS) was undertaken. 28 consecutive cases of endoprosthetic elbow reconstruction, performed between 1989 and 2003, were identified using the unit database. There were 12 males and 16 females, with a mean age 48.9 years, (range 14–84). There were 16 cases of malignant tumour (10 primary, 6 secondary), 3 cases of benign tumour (one each of giant cell tumour, osteoblastoma and pigmented villonodular synovitis) and 10 non-oncological cases, (5 cases of fracture, 3 failed total elbow replacements and 1 infected synostosis). A distal humeral prosthesis was used in 16 patients, distal humeral and proximal ulna in 10 patients, proximal ulna with a humeral component in one patient and proximal radial replacement in one patient. Clinical and radiographic review of all available patients, including a functional assessment with The Toronto Extremity Salvage score (TESS) was undertaken. Endoprosthetic reconstruction around the elbow joint is effective in a wide range of pathologies, allowing in most cases a reasonable level of function, even following two-stage revision for infection.
An experimental sheep model was used for impaction allografting of 12 hemiarthroplasty femoral components placed into two equal-sized groups. In group 1, a 50:50 mixture of ApaPore hydroxyapatite bone-graft substitute and allograft was used. In group 2, ApaPore and allograft were mixed in a 90:10 ratio. Both groups were killed at six months. Ground reaction force results demonstrated no significant differences (p >
0.05) between the two groups at 8, 16 and 24 weeks post-operatively, and all animals remained active. The mean bone turnover rates were significantly greater in group 1, at 0.00206 mm/day, compared to group 2 at 0.0013 mm/day (p <
0.05). The results for the area of new bone formation demonstrated no significant differences (p >
0.05) between the two groups. No significant differences were found between the two groups in thickness of the cement mantle (p >
0.05) and percentage ApaPore-bone contact (p >
0.05). The results of this animal study demonstrated that a mixture of ApaPore allograft in a 90:10 ratio was comparable to using a 50:50 mixture.
We have managed 27 patients (16 women and 11 men) with a mean age of 68.4 years (50 to 84), with failed total hip replacement and severe proximal femoral bone loss by revision using a distal fix/proximal wrap prosthesis. The mean follow-up was for 55.3 months (25 to 126). The mean number of previous operations was 2.2 (1 to 4). The mean Oxford hip score decreased from 46.2 (38 to 60) to 28.5 (17 to 42) (paired t-test, p <
0.001) and the mean Harris Hip score increased from 30.4 (3 to 57.7) to 71.7 (44 to 99.7) (paired t-test, p <
0.001). There were two dislocations, and in three patients we failed to eradicate previous infection. None required revision of the femoral stem. This technique allows instant distal fixation while promoting biological integration and restoration of bone stock. In the short term, the functional outcome is encouraging and the complication rates acceptable in this difficult group of patients.
High bone density will increase the yield point and stiffness of the femoral head and therefore improve the implant fixation. Cement fixation will increase the yield point and stiffness of the femoral head, especially for the lower density bone compared with cementless fixation.
For yield point, there is no significant difference between cemented or cementless resurfacing (4169 ± 1420 N vs. 3789 ± 1461 N; P = 0.434). However, the high density heads provide a significantly higher yield point than low density heads (4749 ± 1145 N vs. 3208 ± 1287 N; P = 0.01). The addition of cement significantly contributes to femoral head stiffness compared to cementless resurfacing (5174 ± 1730 N/mm vs. 3678 ± 1630 N/mm; P = 0.012).
For cell proliferation over time, 3 and 6 kN showed no differences, but 9 kN showed a significant difference between day 4 and day 8 (^p=0.031). SEM and histological analysis showed a network of cuboidal cells on the allograft surface.