Aim. Megaprosthesis have become a standard option in limb preserving surgery after bone resection in musculoskeletal tumors. Recently they have also been used in complex revision arthroplasty in cases with massive bone loss. The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) both in primary oncology cases and aseptic revision cases and analyze which are the significant risk factors for PJI with a special interest on the use of prophylactic antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate beads. Method. All patients undergoing surgery with the use of megaprosthesis in our institution between January/2012 and December/2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Data was collected from electronic medical records. We identified 108 procedures involving megaprosthesis in 90 patients with an average follow-up of 37 months. Indications were 79 primary musculoskeletal tumors and 29 aseptic complex revision arthroplasty. Results. Table 1 shows relevant clinical information. No significant risk factor was found either in uni or multivariate analysis. PJI rate was 15% (12/79) for primary musculoskeletal surgery and 31% (9/29) for complex revision surgery. The use of antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate beads did not show an advantage – 22% (9/41) with vs. 18% (12/67) without. Conclusions. In this relatively small series it was not possible to show a significal association between PJI and certain known risk factors such as gender, ASA score, site of surgery (knee) and revision surgery. The use of antibiotic loaded calcium sulfate beads as prophylaxis was not beneficial in reducing PJI rates in our cohort. We acknowledge the limitations of our study: a small sample group, in a single institution with heterogeneity in terms of diagnosis and surgical site. We recognize the need for a multicentric study with a larger cohort to validate these findings. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

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.

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.

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.

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