We undertook a retrospective review of 33 patients who underwent total femoral endoprosthetic replacement as limb salvage following excision of a malignant bone tumour. In 22 patients this was performed as a primary procedure following total femoral resection for malignant disease. Revision to a total femoral replacement was required in 11 patients following failed segmental endoprosthetic or allograft reconstruction. There were 33 patients with primary malignant tumours, and three had metastatic lesions. The mean age of the patients was 31 years (5 to 68). The mean follow-up was 4.2 years (9 months to 16.4 years). At five years the survival of the implants was 100%, with removal as the endpoint and 56% where the endpoint was another surgical intervention. At five years the patient survival was 32%. Complications included dislocation of the hip in six patients (18%), local recurrence in three (9%), peri-prosthetic fracture in two and infection in one. One patient subsequently developed pulmonary metastases. There were no cases of aseptic loosening or amputation. Four patients required a change of bushings. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumour Society functional outcome score was 67%, the mean Harris Hip Score was 70, and the mean Oxford Knee Score was 34. Total femoral endoprosthetic replacement can provide good functional outcome without compromising patient survival, and in selected cases provides an effective alternative to amputation

This paper describes the preliminary results of a proximal tibial endoprosthesis which spares the knee joint and enables retention of the natural articulation by replacing part of the tibial metaphysis and diaphysis. In eight patients who had a primary malignant bone tumour of the proximal tibia, the distal stem, which had a hydroxyapatite-coated collar to improve fixation, was cemented into the medullary canal. The proximal end had hydroxyapatite-coated extracortical plates which were secured to the remaining proximal tibial metaphysis using cortical screws. The mean age of the patients at operation was 28.9 years (8 to 43) and the mean follow-up was for 35 months (4 to 48). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumour Society score was 79% (57% to 90%), the mean Oxford Knee score was 40 points of 48 (36 to 46) and the mean knee flexion was 112° (100° to 120°). In one patient, revision to a below-knee amputation through the prosthesis was required because of recurrence of the tumour. Another patient sustained a periprosthetic fracture which healed with a painful malunion. This was revised to a further endoprosthesis which replaced the knee. In the remaining six patients the prosthesis allowed preservation of the knee joint with good function and no early evidence of loosening. Further follow-up is required to assess the longevity of these prostheses

We evaluated the clinical results and complications after extra-articular resection of the distal femur and/or proximal tibia and reconstruction with a tumour endoprosthesis (MUTARS) in 59 patients (mean age 33 years (11 to 74)) with malignant bone or soft-tissue tumours. According to a Kaplan–Meier analysis, limb survival was 76% (95% confidence interval (CI) 64.1 to 88.5) after a mean follow-up of 4.7 years (one month to 17 years). Peri-prosthetic infection was the most common indication for subsequent amputation (eight patients). Survival of the prosthesis without revision was 48% (95% CI 34.8 to 62.0) at two years and 25% (95% CI 11.1 to 39.9) at five years post-operatively. Failure of the prosthesis was due to deep infection in 22 patients (37%), aseptic loosening in ten patients (17%), and peri-prosthetic fracture in six patients (10%). Wear of the bearings made a minor revision necessary in 12 patients (20%). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 23 (10 to 29). An extensor lag > 10° was noted in ten patients (17%).

These results suggest that limb salvage after extra-articular resection with a tumour prosthesis can achieve good functional results in most patients, although the rates of complications and subsequent amputation are higher than in patients treated with intra-articular resection.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1425–31.