Endoprosthetic reconstruction following distal femur tumour resection has been widely advocated. In this paper, we present the design of an uncemented endoprosthesis system featuring a short, curved stem, with the goal of enhancing long-term survivorship and functional outcomes. This study involved patients who underwent implantation of an uncemented distal femoral endoprosthesis with a short and curved stem between 2014 and 2019. Functional outcomes were assessed using the 1993 version of the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS-93) score. Additionally, we quantified five types of complications and assessed osseointegration radiologically. The survivorship of the endoprosthesis was evaluated according to two endpoints. A total of 134 patients with a median age of 26 years (IQR 16 to 41) were included in our study. The median follow-up time was 61 months (IQR 56 to 76), and the median functional MSTS-93 was 83% (IQR 73 to 91) postoperatively.Aims
Methods
Introduction. The role of adjuvants in curettage for giant cell tumours (GCT) is still controversial. Our aim was to determine if adjuvant cementation lowers local recurrence (LR) rates for GCTs treated with curettage. Methods. Detailed curettage has been the principal treatment for GCT for the past 30 years. Cement was used from 1996 onwards for tumours where there was concern about structural stability. We investigated factors affecting LR and also the incidence of complications for treatment with or without cement. Results. From 1975 to 2008, 330 patients with GCT were treated primarily with curettage. Eighty-four (25%) received adjuvant treatment with acrylic bone cementation. Cement was only used in Campannacci grade 2 or 3 GCTs. LR for curettage was 30% compared with 14% for curettage plus cementation. (p = 0.001). LR was halved by the use of cement for both stage 2 and stage 3 tumours (Stage 2, 8% LR with cement, 21% without (p=0.02); Stage 3, 19% with cement, 48% without (p⋋0.001)). On multivariate analysis both stage and use of cement were independent significant factors in predicting LR. Site was not significant although the distal tibia and proximal humerus had lower risk of LR than other sites. Cement was however associated with a higher risk for subsequent joint replacement surgery. In patients without LR, 18% with
Aims
Patients and Methods
We undertook a cemental unipolar proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacement in 131 patients with a mean age of 50 years (2 to 84). Primary malignant tumours were present in 54 patients and 67 had metastatic disease. In addition, eight patients had either lymphoma or myeloma and two had non-oncological disorders. The mean follow-up was 27 months (0 to 180). An acetabular revision was required later in 14 patients, 12 of whom had been under the age of 21 years at the time of insertion of their original prosthesis. The risk of acetabular revision in patients over 21 years of age was 8% at five years compared with 36% in those aged under 21 years. All the unipolar hips in this younger age group required revision within 11 years of the initial operation. We conclude that unipolar replacement should not be used in younger patients and should be avoided in patients with a life expectancy of more than five years.
Massive endoprostheses using a cemented intramedullary stem are widely used to allow early resumption of activity after surgery for tumours. The survival of the prosthesis varies with the anatomical site, the type of prosthesis and the mode of fixation. Revision surgery is required in many cases because of aseptic loosening. Insertion of a second cemented endoprosthesis may be difficult because of the poor quality of the remaining bone, and loosening recurs quickly. We describe a series of 14 patients with triplate fixation in difficult revision or joint-sparing tumour surgery with a minimum follow-up of four years. The triplate design incorporated well within a remodelled cortex to achieve osseomechanical integration with all patients regaining their original level of function within five months. Our preliminary results suggest that this technique may provide an easy, biomechanically friendly alternative to insertion of a further device with an intramedullary stem, which has a shorter lifespan in revision or joint-sparing tumour surgery. A short segment of bone remaining after resection of a tumour will not accept an intramedullary stem, but may be soundly fixed using this method.
