Introduction. The development of new megaprosthesis for the treatment of large bone defects has offered important opportunities to orthopedic oncologic surgeons for the replacement of skeletal segments such as the long bones of the upper and lower limbs and the relative joints. Our experience, treating non union and severe bone loss, has brought us, sometimes, to be confronted with the reality of some failures after unsuccessful attempts to reconstruct. Faced with certain radiological and / or clinical drastic situations we wanted to apply the principles of Biological Chamber and oncologic surgery with megaprosthetic replacement solutions. We implanted megaprosthesis with either 1 step or 2 steps (previous antibiotated spacer) technique depending on the septic patient conditions. The aim of this study is to retrospectively evaluate both clinical and radiological outcomes in patients underwented to a lower limb megaprosthesis implant and complications were recorded. Materials and Methods. In total, we treated 58 patients with megaprosthesis mono-and bi-articular subdivided as follows: proximal femur, distal femur, proximal tibia and total femur. The mean follow-up of patients is about 24 months (5 yrs max, min 6 months) with clinical and serial radiographic revaluations with standard methods (X-ray in 45 days, 3–6-12-18-24 months) as well as monitoring of blood parameters of inflammation for at least 2 months. Results. Despite the follow up average is not so long, the first patients have now reached five years of monitoring and in all cases we have had encouraging clinical results with good articulation of the segments, no somato-sensory or motorial defict and acceptable functional recovery. During surgery and, even more, in the pre-operative planning much attention should be given to the evaluation of the extensor apparatus preserving it and, when necessary, reinforcing it with tendon substitutes. Discussion. Megaprosthesis in traumatic and prosthetic failures can therefore be considered, in extreme cases appropriately selected, as a solution available to the orthopedic surgeon? In oncological surgery the opportunity to regive a function, although not ad integrum, to the patient is certainly an element of great fascination for the surgeon and an opportunity for the patient. Unfortunately, the high mortality associated with this disease does not allow us to have long-term follow-up. This then creates a lack of certainty about the survival of this type of prosthesis and the medium and long-term complications that may occur. Nevertheless, the patients treated by us should be considered as a oncologic patient, not because of the disease but for the limited therapeutic options available. Conclusions. We can consider megaprosthesis as a valuable opportunity to restore functionality to patients who are, despite themselves, to deal with highly disabling diseases

The use of new megaprosthesis for massive bone loss is an option for the replacement of skeletal segments. There are several clinical scenarios that can be associated with this situation including severe trauma with multiple failed osteosynthesis with a non union or with a previous prosthetic replacement of a neighbouring joint; multiple revision of arthroplasty with or without infections or large resections of tumours. The aim of this work is to evaluate retrospectively both clinical and radiological outcomes and any complications in patients treated with megaprosthesis in SEPTIC BONE DEFECTS in our Hospital from February 2012 to January 2015. From February 2012 to January 2014 a total of 20 patients were treated with mono-and bi-articular megaprosthesis subdivided as follows: 4 proximal femur, 11 distal femur, 3 total femur, 1 total humerus and 1 proximal humerus. Clinical and serial radiographic evaluations were performed at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Blood parameters with CRP and ESR were monitored for at least 2 months. The mean follow-up of patients was about 24.4 months (range 5 months to 31 months). The mean age of the patients was 53 years (range 37–80years). Of the patients 20, 9 were female and 11 were male. The aetiology was: 11 septic non unions, 3 infected TKA, 4 infected THR and 2 infected tumor prostheses. We have evaluated retrospectively both clinical and radiological outcomes of 20 patients. They had large bone defects that threatened the viability of the limb. They were treated with megaprosthesis. Although the mean length of follow-up was only 24.4 months they showed encouraging clinical results, with good articulation of the segments, no somato-sensory or motor deficit and acceptable functional recovery. There were three cases of dislocation, one case with rifampicin toxicity, one case with acute prosthetic infection (case that needed debridement and one case with chronic oral antimicrobial. Megaprosthesis provides a valuable opportunity to restore functionality to patients with highly disabling diseases. The number of complications is not depreciable

Resection of the proximal femur raises several challenges to the orthopedic oncology surgeon. Among these is the re-establishment of the abductor mechanism that might impacts on hip function. Extent of tumor resection and surgeons’ preferences dictate the reconstruction method of the abductors. While some surgeons advocate the necessity of greater trochanter (GT) preservation whenever possible, others attempt direct soft tissues reattachment to the prosthesis. Sparse data in the literature evaluated the outcomes of greater trochanter fixation to the proximal femur megaprosthesis.

This is a retrospective monocentric study. All patients who received a proximal femoral replacement after tumor resection between 2005 and 2021 with a minimum follow-up of three months were included. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) those with preserved GT reattached to the megaprosthesis and (2) those with direct or indirect (tenodesis to fascia lata) abductor muscles reattachment. Both groups were compared for surgical outcomes (dislocation and revision rates) and functional outcomes (Trendelenburg gait, use of walking-assistive device and abductor muscle strength). Additionally patients in group 1 were subdivided into patients who received GT reinsertion using a grip and cables and those who got direct GT reinsertion using suture materials and studied for GT displacement at three, six and 12 months. Time to cable rupture was recorded and analyzed through a survival analysis.

Fifty-six patients were included in this study with a mean follow-up of 45 months (3-180). There were 23 patients with reinserted GT (group 1) and 33 patients with soft tissue repair (group 2). Revision rate was comparable between both groups(p=0.23); however, there were more dislocations in group 2 (0/23 vs 6/33; p=0.037). Functional outcomes were comparable, with 78% of patients in group 1 (18/23) and 73% of patients in group 2 (24/33) that displayed a Trendelenburg gait (p=0.76). In group 1, 70% (16/23) used walking aids compared to 79% of group 2 (27/33) (p=0.34). Mean abductor strength reached 2.7 in group 1 compared to 2.3 in group 2 (p=0.06). In group 1, 16 of the 23 patients had GT reinsertion with grip and cables. Median survival of cables for these 16 patients reached 13 months in our series. GT displacement reached a mean of two mm, three mm, and 11 mm respectively at three, six and 12 months of follow-up in patients with grip and cables compared to 12 mm, 24 mm and 26 mm respectively at the same follow-up intervals in patients with GT stand-alone suture reinsertion(p<0.05).

Although GT preservation and reinsertion did not improve functional outcomes after proximal femur resection and reconstruction with a megaprosthesis, it was significantly associated with lower dislocation rate despite frequent cable failure and secondary GT migration. No cable or grip revision or removal was recorded. Significantly less displacement was observed in patients for whom GT reattachment used plate and cables rather than sutures only. Therefore we suggest that GT should be preserved and reattached whenever possible and that GT reinsertion benefits from strong materials such as grip and cables.

To analyse bone stresses in humerus-megaprosthesis construct in response to axial loading under varying implant lengths in proximal humeral replacement following tumour excision.

CT scans of 10 cadaveric humeri were processed in 3D Slicer to obtain three-dimensional (3D) models of the cortical and cancellous bone. Megaprostheses of varying body lengths (L) were modelled in FreeCAD to obtain the 3D geometry. Four FE models: group A consisting of intact bone; groups B (L=40mm), C (L=100mm) and D (L=120mm) comprising of humerus-megaprosthesis constructs were created. Isotropic linear elastic behaviour was assigned for all materials. A tensile load of 200N was applied to the elbow joint surface with the glenohumeral joint fixed with fully bonded contact interfaces. Static analysis was performed in Abaqus. The bone was divided at every 5% bone length beginning distally. Statistical analysis was performed on maximum von Mises stresses in cortical and cancellous bone across each slice using one-way ANOVA (0-45% bone length) and paired t-tests (45-70% bone length). To quantify extent of stress shielding, average percentage change in stress from intact bone was also computed.

Maximum stress was seen to occur distally and anteriorly above the coronoid fossa. Results indicated statistically significant differences between intact state and shorter megaprostheses relative to longer megaprostheses and proximally between intact and implanted bones. Varying levels of stress shielding were recorded across multiple slices for all megaprosthesis lengths. The degree of stress shielding increased with implant lengthening being 2-4 times in C and D compared to B.

Axial loading of the humerus can occur with direct loading on outstretched upper limbs or indirectly through the elbow. Resultant stress shielding effect predicted in longer megaprosthesis models may become clinically relevant in repetitive axial loading during activities of daily living. It is recommended to use shorter megaprosthesis to prevent failure.

Introduction

Rotational or axial alignment is an important concept in total knee surgery. Malrotation of the femoral component can lead to patellofemoral maltracking, pain and stiffness. In reconstruction surgery of the knee, achievement of correct rotation is even more difficult because of the lack of anatomical landmarks. The linea aspera is often the only remaining landmark, but its reliability is questionable.

Aim

Periprosthetic joint infections are a devastating complication after modular endoprosthetic reconstruction following resection of a musculoskeletal tumour. Due to long operating times, soft tissue dissection and immunosuppression, the infection rate after limb salvage is high and ranges between 8% and 15%. The aim of this retrospective single centre study was to assess the reinfection and re-reinfection rate after septic complications of megaprostheses.

Infection of a megaprosthesis implanted following tumor resection leads to major morbidity and sometimes amputation. Their treatment is like treatment of infected total knee or hip prosthesis, except there is a dramatically larger dead or infected tissue, and immune deficiency due to oncologic treatments. Two-stage revision of infected megaprosthesis seems to be the safest solution except amputation.

Between 1990–2005, we have implanted 282 megaprosthesis in the upper and lower extremity following tumor resection. Sixteen prostheses became infected after a median of 48 months (2–96) following the index intervention. All of them underwent two-stage revision. The infections were staged after Mc Pherson classification, revealing that 75% of them were ‘stage IIIB’. The first stage included debridement, insertion of culture specific antibiotic-loaded bone cement in the form of beads and/or rods, temporary fixation with a custom made IM nail or self-designed, mobile hinged-joint prosthesis covered with antibiotic- loaded PMMA. The most common grown microorganism was MRSA. Following parenteral antibiotherapy, the second staging was performed after a median of 6 weeks (5–11). The reconstruction stage included reimplantation of a cemented prosthesis in 5 patients, a cemented prosthesis in 6 patients, arthrodesis through segment transfer with an external fixator in 4 patients. Eight patients necessitated a local or a distant flap for soft tissue coverage. A patient with recurrent deep infection was amputated.

Patients were followed up for a median of 86 months (24–146). Infection was controlled in 15 patients, with an overall success rate of 94%. The mean functional outcome for the retained limb using the MSTS score was 70%.

Two-stage revision in infected mega prosthesis yields results close to conventional joint replacements, if general guidelines are followed and good soft tissue coverage is provided.

Introduction:

The development of new prostheses due to large resections has offered important opportunities to orthopedic surgeons mainly in oncology. A medline research can easily underline how poor is the international experience about this cases in nonunion: 75 results for megaprosthesis just 7 works in nonunion.

It is proposed the experience of our department, which deals specifically with the treatment of nonunion, in cases of repeated failures to treatment.

One of the most significant problems in the treatment of relapsing nonunion is the consequent worsening of joint function.

Critical bone defects, sepsis, joint fractures and unclear relapsing nonunions are the most common cases for a megaprosthesis treatment.

In these cases, even if it obtains the healing of nonunion the functional result would be presumptively poor. This radiological or clinical situation drove us, in such cases, to drastic solutions following the principles of cancer cases.

We implanted megaprosthesis with either techniques: 1 stage or 2 stages depending on the clinical findings. In nonunion the main decision making was the septic or aseptic status.

The treatment of bone metastases is usually palliative and aims to achieve adequate control of pain, to prevent and resolve compression of the cord in lesions of the spine and to anticipate or stabilise pathological fractures in the appendicular skeleton. In selected cases the complete resection of an isolated bone metastasis may improve the survival of the patient. During recent decades, the life expectancy of patients affected with metastatic carcinoma has improved considerably because of advances in chemotherapy, immunotherapy, hormonal treatment and radiotherapy. This improvement requires greater reliability in the reconstructive procedure in order to avoid mechanical failure during prolonged survival of the patient. The author experience with modular megaprosthesis by Link (megasystem C) allowed us to present a rapid, effective and functional solution.

From June 2001 to December 2007 225 patients have been operated with a megaprosthesis C for tumoral resection. The new megaprosthesis C by Link represents a wide-ranging system that can afford a large variety of reconstructions in the inferior limb, from very short replacement of 5 cm in proximal femur, to a total femur and proximal tibia replacement. Modularity is represented by 1 cm increase in length. The different options of cemented and not cemented stem may be used with intraoperative decision. In cemented stem a rough collar seals the osteotomy and prevents polyethylene debris from entering the femoral canal by inducing a scar tissue around the stem entrance (so-called purse-string effect). Moreover in patients with solitary lesions and very good prognosis an allograft-prosthesis composite can be performed with improved clinical results on walking and function. Of the 225 patients that underwent tumoral resection and reconstruction with a modular megaprosthesis approximately 43% (97 cases) were operated for metastatic disease. Among these cases 55 cases were proximal femoral recontructions, 39 cases were distal femoral reconstructions and 3 cases were proximal tibial reconstructions. All cases were performed with cemented stems. We experienced a 7% of postoperative infections, 2% of dislocations of proximal femoral prosthesis and 3% of mechanical failures. While infections and dislocation rates were in the average for this surgery, mechanical failures seemed relatively high. However in patients with relatively long resections and muscle deficiency the mechanical stress exerted on the prosthesis can explain this kind of mechanical failure.

Aims

The proximal tibia (PT) is the anatomical site most frequently affected by primary bone tumours after the distal femur. Reconstruction of the PT remains challenging because of the poor soft-tissue cover and the need to reconstruct the extensor mechanism. Reconstructive techniques include implantation of massive endoprosthesis (megaprosthesis), osteoarticular allografts (OAs), or allograft-prosthesis composites (APCs).

Aims

Endoprosthetic reconstruction with a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) can be used to treat distal femoral bone loss from oncological and non-oncological causes. This study reports the short-term implant survivorship, complications, and risk factors for patients who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications.

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.

Rarely, the extent of a malignant bone tumour may necessitate resection of the complete humerus to achieve adequate oncological clearance. We present our experience with reconstruction in such cases using a total humeral endoprosthesis (THER) in 20 patients (12 male and eight female) with a mean age of 22 years (6 to 59). We assessed the complications, the oncological and functional outcomes and implant survival. Surgery was performed between June 2001 and October 2009. The diagnosis included osteosarcoma in nine, Ewing’s sarcoma in eight and chondrosarcoma in three. One patient was lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up was 41 months (10 to 120) for all patients and 56 months (25 to 120) in survivors. There were five local recurrences (26.3%) and 11 patients were alive at time of last follow-up, with overall survival for all patients being 52% (95% confidence interval (CI) 23.8 to 74) at five years. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score for the survivors was 22 (73%; 16 to 23). The implant survival was 95% (95% CI 69.5 to 99.3) at five years.

The use of a THER in the treatment of malignant tumours of bone is oncologically safe; it gives consistent and predictable results with low rates of complication.

The June 2015 Oncology Roundup. 360 . looks at: Infection in megaprosthesis; Impressive results for mid femoral reconstruction; Revered teaching or old myth? Femoral neck protection in metastatic disease; Megaprosthesis about the knee; Malignant transformation in multiple hereditary exostoses; Fracture of intercalary bone allograft; Comorbidity and outcomes in sarcoma; A worrying turn? Use of denosumab for giant cell tumour of bone

INTRODUCTION. Recently the evolution of prosthesis technology allows the surgeon to replace entire limbs. These special prostheses or megaprostheses were born for the treatment of severe oncological bone loss. Recently, however, the indications and applications of these devices are expanding to other orthopaedic and trauma situations. Since some years we are implanting megaprostheses in non-oncological conditions such as septic post-traumatic failures represented by complex non-unions and critical size bone defects. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the clinical outcome of this treatment and register all the complications and infection recurrence. MATERIAL AND METHOD. Between January 2008 and January 2016 we have treated 55 patients with septic post-traumatic bone defects In 48/55 cases we perform a 2 steps procedure: 1° step: resection, debridment, devices removal and antibiotic spacer implantation; 2° step: spacer removal and megaprosthesis implantation. In 7/55 patients in whom all the femur was infected, we performed a one step procedure by the complete removal of the femur and a megaprosthesis (Total Femur) implantation. RESULTS. We obtained good results from a clinical, laboratory and radiological point of view with restoration of the function of the affected limb. Only in 5/55 cases the infection recurred. All the Total Femur megaprosthesis implanted in a one step procedure healed without recurrence of infection. CONCLUSION. Megaprosthesis in severe septic bone loss can be considered, in extreme cases appropriately selected, as an available solution for the orthopedic surgeon. The two steps procedure gives the best results with safety and lower infection recurrence creating a membrane (Chamber Induction Technique) that can protect the prosthesis in a safe environment. We can perform a one step procedure only when all the infected segment is entirely removed. This type of complex surgery must be performed in specialized centers where knowledge and technologies are present

Introduction. Throughout the world the number of large joint arthroprosthetic implants continues to increase and consequently the number of septic complications with prosthesis mobilizations, periprostehtic bone loss or non-unions. The implant of large resection prosthesis (megaprosthesis) in selected patients could be a good solution both in hip and knee infected prosthesis with bone defects. The two stage techniques with a first operation to debride, prosthesis components removal and antibiotic spacer implantation followed by a subsequent final prosthetic implant offer great results even in highly complex patients. Objectives. The purpose of this study is to evaluate retrospectively the outcome after the implantation of megaprosthesis of the lower limbs in prosthetic infected revision. Methods. We have retrospectively evaluated all the patients we have treated with implantation of megaprosthesis in septic prosthesis revision. Between January 2008 and January 2014 we have treated 25 patients: 18 cases of hip revision and 7 cases of knee revision. All patients were treated with a two steps procedure. Results. We obtained good results from a clinical, laboratory and radiological point of view with restoration of the function of the affected limb in 22/25 cases. In 3/25 cases the infection recurred and an additional surgery was necessary. Conclusions. Megaprosthesis in large septic revision can be considered, in extreme cases appropriately selected, an available solution for the orthopedic surgeon able to restore function to the patient. The two steps procedure gives the best results with safety and lower infection recurrence creating a membrane (Chamber Induction Technique) that can protect the prosthesis in a safe environment. This type of complex surgery must be performed in specialized centers where knowledge and technologies are present

Aims

Osteofibrous dysplasia (OFD) is a rare benign lesion predominantly affecting the tibia in children. Its potential link to adamantinoma has influenced management. This international case series reviews the presentation of OFD and management approaches to improve our understanding of OFD.