Aims. We aimed to examine the long-term mechanical survivorship, describe the modes of all-cause failure, and identify risk factors for mechanical failure of all-polyethylene tibial components in endoprosthetic reconstruction. Methods. This is a retrospective database review of consecutive endoprosthetic reconstructions performed for oncological indications between 1980 and 2019. Patients with all-polyethylene tibial components were isolated and analyzed for revision for mechanical failure. Outcomes included survival of the all-polyethylene tibial component, revision surgery categorized according to the Henderson Failure Mode Classification, and complications and functional outcome, as assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score at the final follow-up. Results. A total of 278 patients were identified with 289 all-polyethylene tibial components. Mechanical survival was 98.4%, 91.1%, and 85.2% at five, ten and 15 years, respectively. A total of 15 mechanical failures were identified at the final follow-up. Of the 13 all-polyethylene tibial components used for revision of a previous tibial component, five (38.5%) failed mechanically. Younger patients (< 18 years vs > 18 years; p = 0.005) and those used as revision components (p < 0.001) had significantly increased rates of failure. Multivariate logistic regression modelling showed revision status to be a positive risk factor for failure (odds ratio (OR) 19.498, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.598 to 82.676) and increasing age was a negative risk factor for failure (OR 0.927, 95% CI 0.872 to 0.987). Age-stratified risk analysis showed that age > 24 years was no longer a statistically significant risk factor for failure. The final mean MSTS score for all patients was 89% (8.5% to 100.0%). Conclusion. The long-term mechanical survivorship of all-polyethylene tibial components when used for tumour endoprostheses was excellent. Tumour surgeons should consider using these components for their durability and the secondary benefits of reduced cost and ease of removal and revision. However, caution should be taken when using all-polyethylene tibial components in the revision setting as a significantly higher rate of mechanical failure was seen in this group of patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(2):170–176

Aims. Rotating-hinge knee prostheses are commonly used to reconstruct the distal femur after resection of a tumour, despite the projected long-term burden of reoperation due to complications. Few studies have examined the factors that influence their failure and none, to our knowledge, have used competing risk models to do so. The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors for failure of a rotating-hinge knee distal femoral arthroplasty using the Fine-Gray competing risk model. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 209 consecutive patients who, between 1991 and 2016, had undergone resection of the distal femur for tumour and reconstruction using a rotating-hinge knee prosthesis. The study endpoint was failure of the prosthesis, defined as removal of the femoral component, the tibial component, or the bone-implant fixation; major revision (exchange of the femoral component, tibial component, or the bone-implant fixation); or amputation. Results. Multivariate Fine-Gray regression analyses revealed different hazards for each Henderson failure mode: percentage of femoral resection (p = 0.001) and extent of quadriceps muscle resection (p = 0.005) for overall prosthetic failure; extent of quadriceps muscle resection (p = 0.002) and fixation of femoral component (p = 0.011) for type 2 failure (aseptic loosening); age (p = 0.009) and percentage of femoral resection (p = 0.019) for type 3 failure (mechanical failure); and type of joint resection (p = 0.037) for type 4 (infection) were independent predictors. A bone stem ratio of > 2.5 reliably predicted aseptic loosening. Conclusion. We identified independent risk factors for overall and cause-specific prosthetic failure after rotating-hinge knee distal femoral arthroplasty using a competing risk Fine-Gray model. A bone stem ratio > 2.5 reliably predicts aseptic loosening. An accurate knowledge of the risks of distal femoral arthroplasty after resection for tumour assists surgical planning and managing patient expectations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1405–1413

Aims

For rare cases when a tumour infiltrates into the hip joint, extra-articular resection is required to obtain a safe margin. Endoprosthetic reconstruction following tumour resection can effectively ensure local control and improve postoperative function. However, maximizing bone preservation without compromising surgical margin remains a challenge for surgeons due to the complexity of the procedure. The purpose of the current study was to report clinical outcomes of patients who underwent extra-articular resection of the hip joint using a custom-made osteotomy guide and 3D-printed endoprosthesis.

Aims

We have evaluated the survivorship, outcomes, and failures of an interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate implant used to preserve the native hip joint and achieve proximal fixation when there is little residual femur during large endoprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur.

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the results of custom-made endoprostheses with extracortical plates plus or minus a short, intramedullary stem aimed at preserving the physis after resection of bone sarcomas in children.

Aims. Aseptic loosening is a major cause of failure in cemented endoprosthetic reconstructions. This paper presents the long-term outcomes of a custom-designed cross-pin fixation construct designed to minimize rotational stress and subsequent aseptic loosening in selected patients. The paper will also examine the long-term survivorship and modes of failure when using this technique. Patients and Methods. A review of 658 consecutive, prospectively collected cemented endoprosthetic reconstructions for oncological diagnoses at a single centre between 1980 and 2017 was performed. A total of 51 patients were identified with 56 endoprosthetic implants with cross-pin fixation, 21 of which were implanted following primary resection of tumour. Locations included distal femoral (n = 36), proximal femoral (n = 7), intercalary (n = 6), proximal humeral (n = 3), proximal tibial (n = 3), and distal humeral (n = 1). Results. The median follow-up was 132 months (interquartile range (IQR) 44 to 189). In all, 20 stems required revision: eight for infection, five for structural failure, five for aseptic loosening, and two for tumour progression. Mechanical survivorship at five, ten, and 15 years was 84%, 78%, and 78%, respectively. Mechanical failure rate varied by location, with no mechanical failures of proximal femoral constructs and distal femoral survivorship of 82%, 77%, and 77% at five, ten, and 15 years. The survivorship of primary constructs at five years was 74%, with no failure after 40 months, while the survivorship for revision constructs was 89%, 80%, and 80% at five, ten, and 15 years. . Conclusion. The rate of mechanical survivorship in our series is similar to those reported for other methods of reconstruction for short diaphyseal segments, such as compressive osseointegration. The mechanical failure rate differed by location, while there was no substantial difference in long-term survival between primary and revision reconstructions. Overall, custom cross-pin fixation is a viable option for endoprosthetic reconstruction of short metaphyseal segments with an acceptable rate of mechanical failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:724–731