Aims. Proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacements (PFEPRs) are the most common reconstruction option for osseous defects following primary and metastatic tumour resection. This study aimed to compare the rate of implant failure between PFEPRs with monopolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasties and acetabular arthroplasties, and determine the optimum articulation for revision PFEPRs. Methods. This is a retrospective review of 233 patients who underwent PFEPR. The mean age was 54.7 years (SD 18.2), and 99 (42.5%) were male. There were 90 patients with primary bone tumours (38.6%), 122 with metastatic bone disease (52.4%), and 21 with haematological malignancy (9.0%). A total of 128 patients had monopolar (54.9%), 74 had bipolar hemiarthroplasty heads (31.8%), and 31 underwent acetabular arthroplasty (13.3%). Results. At a mean 74.4 months follow-up, the overall revision rate was 15.0%. Primary malignancy (p < 0.001) and age < 50 years (p < 0.001) were risk factors for revision. The risks of death and implant failure were similar in patients with primary disease (p = 0.872), but the risk of death was significantly greater for patients who had metastatic bone disease (p < 0.001). Acetabular-related implant failures comprised 74.3% of revisions; however, no difference between hemiarthroplasty or arthroplasty groups (p = 0.209), or between monopolar or bipolar hemiarthroplasties (p = 0.307), was observed. There was greater radiological wear in patients with longer follow-up and primary bone malignancy. Re-revision rates following a revision PFEPR was 34.3%, with dual-mobility bearings having the lowest rate of instability and re-revision (15.4%). Conclusion. Hemiarthroplasty and arthroplasty PFEPRs carry the same risk of revision in the medium term, and is primarily due to acetabular complications. There is no difference in revision rates or erosion between monopolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasties. The main causes of failure were acetabular wear in the hemiarthroplasty group and instability in the arthroplasty group. These risks should be balanced and patient prognosis considered when contemplating the bearing choice. Dual-mobility, constrained bearings, or large diameter heads (> 32 mm) are recommended in all revision PFEPRs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1633–1640

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

Introduction: Total femoral endoprosthetic replacement can be an alternative to amputation following extensive tumour excision or in cases of severe bone loss. In skeletally immature patients the problem of leg length inequality may be overcome by the use of extendable prostheses. The aim of this study is to assess the functional outcome of patients following total femoral endoprosthetic replacement. Methods: This is a retrospective, single centre study of 16 patients who underwent consecutive total femoral replacements between 1978 and 1999. Information was collected from the Bone Tumour database, medical records and clinical review. The prostheses were custom made by the Biomedical Engineering Department of University College London and Stanmore Implants Worldwide. The implants are composed of a Titanium alloy shaft with Cobalt-Chrome bearing surfaces, incorporating a SMILES (Stanmore Modular Individualised Lower Extremity System) knee joint. Outcome was assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MTS) rating score. Sample: Eight patients were male and eight female. Mean age was 35 years (range 5–75 years). Ten patients underwent total femoral replacement as a primary procedure; nine for malignant tumour and one for hydatid disease. Of the patients with malignancy five had metastases at the time of presentation. The other indications were failed distal femoral replacement in four cases and periprosthetic fractures in the remaining two. Four children received extendable prostheses. Results: Of the patients with malignant disease, all but one had complete tumour excision. Three patients developed local recurrence. Two patients died of metastases within one year of diagnosis and three more died within five years. Three required revision procedures. Two more dislocated at the hip joint. Other complications included infection and lymphoedema. In patients surviving longer than one year the average range of motion at the hip was 85 degrees and at the knee 80 degrees. Using the MTS rating score the mean functional outcome was 60% of normal (range 27–90%). Of the survivors one achieved an excellent result, five were good, four fair and one poor. Conclusion: Total femoral endoprosthetic replacement can be effective in limb salvage and provide an alternative to amputation. Good functional results can often be achieved. However, the complication rate is high and the outcome extremely varied

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prosthesis characteristics and associated conditions that may modify the survival of total femoral endoprosthetic replacements (TFEPR). Patients and Methods. In all, 81 patients treated with TFEPR from 1976 to 2017 were retrospectively evaluated and failures were categorized according to the Henderson classification. There were 38 female patients (47%) and 43 male patients (53%) with a mean age at diagnosis of 43 years (12 to 86). The mean follow-up time was 10.3 years (0 to 31.7). A survival analysis was performed followed by univariate and multivariate Cox regression to identify independent implant survival factors. Results. The revision-free survival of the implant was 71% at five years and 63.3% at ten years. Three prostheses reached 15 years without revision. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score in the group was 26 (23 to 28). The mechanisms of failure were infection in 18%, structural failures in 6%, tumour progression in 5%, aseptic loosening in 2%, and soft-tissue failures in 1%. Prostheses used for primary reconstruction after oncological resections had lower infection rates than revision implants (8% vs 25%; p = 0.001). The rates of infection in silver-coated and non-silver-coated prosthesis were similar (17.4% vs 19.%; p = 0.869). The incidence of hip dislocation was 10%. Rotating hinge prosthesis had a lower failure rate than fixed hinge prosthesis (5.3% vs 11%). After Cox regression, the independent factors associated with failures were the history of previous operations (hazard ratio (HR) 3.7; p = 0.041), and the associated arthroplasty of the proximal tibia (HR 3.8; p = 0.034). At last follow-up, 11 patients (13%) required amputation. Conclusion. TFEPR offers a reliable reconstruction option for massive bone loss of the femur, with a good survival when the prosthesis is used as a primary implant. The use of a rotating hinge at the knee and dual mobility bearing at the hip may be adequate to reduce the risk of mechanical and soft-tissue failures. Infection remains the main concern and there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of silver-coated endoprosthesis. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:522–528

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

We report the use of contained impacted morsellized allograft to revise an aseptically loose, massive distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement in a 27-year old Caucasian lady. The prosthesis was inserted 4 years earlier, following neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and resection of a distal femoral high grade osteosarcoma. Impaction grafting was used to restore bone stock and maintain femoral length. The patient remains disease-free, with excellent function, at two years after revision with no evidence of loosening and maintenance of bone stock. This is the first time this technique has been used in revision of a distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement

Introduction: Total femoral endoprosthetic replacement can be used as an alternative to hip disarticulation following extensive tumour excision or in cases of more severe bone loss. To date there have been no long term studies on the oncological and functional outcome of patients who have had this procedure for malignant bone disease. We report our experience of over 25 years employing this procedure using a custom-made and modular total femoral endoprosthetic replacement. Methods: This is a retrospective, single centre study of 27 patients who underwent consecutive total femoral replacement as a primary procedure between 1978 and 2005. Information was collected from the bone tumour database, medical records and clinic review. Outcome was assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) rating score, the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Results: There were 15 males and 12 females, with a mean age of 30 years (5 to 65). The overall mean follow-up was 4.3 years (1 to 16.4) for all patients, 9.1 years (1 to 16.4) for the 7 patients who were alive at the time of this review, and 2.6 years (1 to 13) for the 20 patients who had died. 24 patients had primary malignant bone tumours of the femur and 3 had metastatic disease from a known primary elsewhere. 3 patients developed local recurrence, 1 patient developed new lung metastases. Mean MSTS score was 63% (19/30), mean HHS was 68/100 and mean OKS was 34/48. Discussion: Total femoral replacement can be an effective alternative to hip disarticulation in patients with malignant bone disease. Good functional outcomes can be achieved without compromising survival

Purpose; To show that Distal Femoral Endoprosthetic Replacement for metastatic disease can be performed with relatively few complications and allows good pain control and mobilisation for otherwise severely compromised patients. Method; This is a retrospective study, using the oncology database, patient records and local correspondence, looking at 23 patients with distal femoral metastases who had limb salvage with a Distal Femoral Endoprosthesis (DF EPR). Results; There were 10 males (43%) and 13 females (57%), mean age 65 (38–84). 13 (57%) had Renal, 6 (26%) Breast and 5 other primaries identified. Five had additional metastases. 8 (35%) had pathological fractures. The mean time for diagnosis of mets was 67 months ranging from 0 (i.e. at the time of primary tumour) to 30 years since the original diagnosis. 15 patients had surgery alone. 3 patients were lost to follow up. 15 patients have diseased at a mean of 26 months (4–58) post op. There was one intra-op and four post-op complications. The majority of the patients were satisfied post op with regards to pain and mobility. The generally unfavourable prognosis and perceived risks have led surgeons to palliate, stabilise in situ or amputate for distal femoral metastases despite recognised morbidity and life style restrictions. We conclude that DF EPR should be considered as a limb salvage option in patients with distal femoral mets

Introduction: Deep infection following distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement remains an uncommon, (< 7%), but serious complication; we present the results all three-phase revisions performed at our unit. Method: Using the endoprosthesis-survivorship database we identified and analysed 15 consecutive cases, (including MSTS functional assessment of all available patients), performed between 1993 and 2002. The primary replacement had been performed for trauma and fourteen for limb reconstruction following excision of tumour. All cases underwent a three-phase revision. The first stage involved debridement and exchange of prosthesis for a custom-made antibiotic-impregnated spacer. Following at least six weeks of intravenous antibiotics, a further endoprosthesis was inserted. Results: Eight patients had complete clinical, radiological & biochemical resolution of infection, (mean follow-up 60 months). Mean MSTS score for this group was 83% (range 60–97%). The remaining seven had recurrence of infection, all within 18 months. Of this group, two underwent a successful second revision procedure with conversion to a total femoral replacement. Two cases are satisfactorily managed with antibiotic suppression therapy and three have required amputation. Two of these cases underwent above-knee amputation following a failed second revision, whilst the third was given a femoral stump endoprosthesis to avoid disarticulation. Revision was generally more successful in younger patients. Neither the original pathology nor the timing of revision surgery appeared to affect outcome. Negative tissue cultures from the first stage were associated with a successful result. Very high levels of inflammatory markers were associated with failure of revision. Conclusion: We recommend two-stage revision of distal femoral replacement as an effective treatment for infection, allowing limb salvage with excellent functional outcome in the majority of patients. The antibiotic phase may need to exceed six weeks in certain cases, and levels of inflammatory markers appear to be critical. If this revision fails, conversion to a total femoral replacement should be considered

Purpose: Few functional outcomes of total femoral endoprosthetic replacement (TFEPR) using contemporary modular systems are available. We compared functional results between TFEPR patients receiving fixed- and rotating-hinge knee componentry following oncologic resections. Method: Eighteen TFEPR patients were identified from a prospectively gathered sarcoma database. Six were secondary procedures and 12 primary. Four patients had metastatic carcinoma, 8 osteosarcoma, 4 non-osteogenic spindle cell sarcomas of bone, 1 Ewing’s sarcoma, and 1 femur-invading soft-tissue sarcoma. All reconstructions used modular implants from a single company. Proximally, all were bipolar hip hemiarthoplasties, 12 including abductor reattachment. Distally, 8 had fixed- and 10 had rotating-hinge knee componentry. Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), and both Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scores (MSTS) were compared between fixed- and rotating-hinge groups using the Mann-Whitney test. Results: Complications included 1 hip dislocation, 1 femoral malrotation, and wound problems requiring 3 debridements and 1 amputation. One metastatic carcinoma patient developed local relapse. Follow-up averaged 4 years (range 1 month to 14 years). At latest follow-up, 10 patients had died of disease. Eight remained alive, 6 disease-free, 2 with distant disease. Among patients surviving 6 months, 6 used no assistive devices, 5 used a single cane, and 4 were wheelchair bound, each at least partly due to distant disease progression. TESS averaged 74.5±17.4, MSTS1987 25.2±4.4; and MSTS1993 58.6±22.9 among the 12 patients for whom functional results were available from latest follow-up. No statistically significant differences or even trends were detected between fixed-hinge and rotating-hinge patients (lowest p = 0.755), but both instability problems were in the rotating-hinge group. Conclusion: While both rotating- and fixed-hinge TFEPR reconstructions may function well, consideration should be given to fixed-hinge knee reconstruction when massive myectomies or poorer conditioning make hip and knee stability a primary concern in the short-term

Introduction and Aims: Orthopaedic oncologists are often consulted regarding problems involving salvage of the distal femur due to bone loss, non-unions, infections. In young patients, extensive bony reconstruction is often necessary; in elderly, low demand patients, replacement with an endoprosthetic device results in decreased surgical time and more rapid mobilisation.

Method: Since 1991, 27 patients underwent reconstruction with a custom modular distal femoral replacement and rotating hinged knee joint (DFR). Twenty-two (81%) were revised to a DFR from an existing knee arthroplasty. Diagnoses included fracture, non-union, osteomyelitis, osteolysis or deformity. Average age was 66 (25–85); 83% were female. Most patients had undergone multiple prior surgeries. Patients with a history of infection had undergone aggressive resection and insertion of spacers with prolonged antibiotic administration, however they had no infection at the time of DFR reconstruction. All endoprostheses were cemented. Patients were allowed immediate weight-bearing and rehabilitation similar to patients undergoing TKA.

Results: One elderly patient died in the immediate peri-operative period of respiratory failure and one was lost to follow-up after placement in a nursing home. Average follow-up on 25 evaluable patients was 47 months (7–122). Reoperations were for recurrent infection (six) and tibial component loosening (three). Five of the six with infection were treated with synovectomy, antibiotic beads and suppressive oral antibiotics, and all five devices are still in place at an average of 54 months (range, 25–100). One severely diabetic patient had had multiple episodes of sepsis unrelated to the prosthesis which eventually seeded the distal femur and required a hip disarticulation. MSTS functional scores at last follow-up averaged 49% (13–80%) and HSS knee scores averaged 71% (37–90%).

Conclusion: DFR is a useful salvage procedure in low demand patients. Initially, six patients were scheduled for transfemoral amputation and three were confined to wheelchairs. Patients other than the hip disarticulation were at minimum household ambulators at last follow-up. In spite of problems with infection, most patients improved in overall function.

We report a case of spontaneous physeal growth arrest of the distal femur in a nine-year-old child with Ewing’s sarcoma of the proximal femur treated with chemotherapy and endoprosthetic replacement. Owing to the extent of disuse osteoporosis at the time of surgery, the entire intramedullary canal up to the distal femoral physis was filled with cement. Three years later, the femur remained at its pre-operative length of 19 cm. Pre-operative calculations of further growth failed to account for the growth arrest, and the initial expandable growing prosthesis inserted has been revised to a longer one in order to address the leg-length discrepancy.

To our knowledge, this is the only reported case of distal femoral physeal growth arrest following cemented endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur.

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication of any arthroplasty procedure. We reviewed our use of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers (ABLCSs) for staged management of PJI where segmental bone loss, ligamentous instability, or soft-tissue defects necessitate a static construct. We reviewed factors contributing to their failure and techniques to avoid these complications when using ABLCSs in this context. Methods. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 94 patients undergoing first-stage revision of an infected knee prosthesis between September 2007 and January 2020 at a single institution. Radiographs and clinical records were used to assess and classify the incidence and causes of static spacer failure. Of the 94 cases, there were 19 primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), ten revision TKAs (varus-valgus constraint), 20 hinged TKAs, one arthrodesis (nail), one failed spacer (performed elsewhere), 21 distal femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasties, and 22 proximal tibial arthroplasties. Results. A total of 35/94 patients (37.2%) had spacer-related complications, of which 26/35 complications (74.3%) were because of mechanical failure of the spacer construct, while 9/35 (25.7%) were due to recurrence of infection. Risk factors for internal failure were a construct where the total intramedullary spacer length was less than twice the length of the central osseous defect (p = 0.009), where proximal or distal intraosseous spacer contact was < 10%, and after tibial tubercle osteotomy (p = 0.005). The incidence of spacer complications significantly increased the time to second stage: mean 157 days (42 to 458) in those without complications versus 227 days (11 to 528) with complications (p = 0.014). Conclusion. The failure rate of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers is much higher than anticipated. Complications of the spacer significantly increased the time to second-stage revision. The risk of mechanical failure is significantly increased if the spacer is less than double the size of the segmental defect, or if inadequate reinforcement is inserted into the residual bone. These findings serve as a guide for surgeons to avoid mechanical complications with static spacers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1067–1073

We reviewed the outcome of 69 uncemented, custom-made, distal femoral endoprosthetic replacements performed in 69 patients between 1994 and 2006. There were 31 women and 38 men with a mean age at implantation of 16.5 years (5 to 37). All procedures were performed for primary malignant bone tumours of the distal femur. At a mean follow-up of 124.2 months (4 to 212), 53 patients were alive, with one patient lost to follow-up. All nine implants (13.0%) were revised due to aseptic loosening at a mean of 52 months (8 to 91); three implants (4.3%) were revised due to fracture of the shaft of the prosthesis and three patients (4.3%) had a peri-prosthetic fracture. Bone remodelling associated with periosteal cortical thinning adjacent to the uncemented intramedullary stem was seen in 24 patients but this did not predispose to failure. All aseptically loose implants in this series were diagnosed to be loose within the first five years. The results from this study suggest that custom-made uncemented distal femur replacements have a higher rate of aseptic loosening compared to published results for this design when used with cemented fixation. Loosening of uncemented replacements occurs early indicating that initial fixation of the implant is crucial. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:263–9

The objective of this study was to compare the results of two consecutive series of patients with either intra-medullary uncemented stems (UCS) distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement or the Compress. ®. (CMP) distal femoral implant. Patients were divided into two groups: those who received UCS prosthesis (Group-1: 54 patients) and those who received CMP prosthesis (Group-2: 42 patients).The most frequent diagnosis was osteosarcoma. Age and gender were similar both groups. In Group-1, at a mean follow-up of 144 months, 37 prostheses were still in place. The overall Kaplan-Meier prosthetic survival rates were 79% at five and 62 % at ten years. Most of failures were long term complications. Aseptic loosening was the primary cause of late prosthetic failure. On Cox regression analysis, prosthetic stem diameter under 13mm was a significant negative prognostic factor for prosthetic survival (p=0.016). In Group-2, at a mean follow-up of 84 months, 36 prostheses were still in place. The overall rate of CMP prosthesis survival was 86% at 5 years. All complications were during the first postoperative year, being femoral fracture the main revision cause. The patients who retained the prosthesis had mainly good or excellent MSTS functional results in both groups

Background: Chronic prosthetic joint infection is a cause of patient morbidity and can be challenging to treat. Surgeons performing revision arthroplasty of the hip and knee are confronted with a growing number of patients with extensive loss of bone stock. The use of a modular endoprosthesis is a possible method of treatment in such patients. Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess the functional outcomes and the success of a single and two stage revision procedure in eradicating chronic prosthetic joint infection using a femoral endoprosthesis. Methods: A prospective database was reviewed of 20 patients who underwent a proximal, total or distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement after chronic prosthetic infection. Radiographs performed at the time of latest follow up were evaluated for signs of loosening, osteomyelitis and implant failure. The functional status was assessed using the Short Form (SF)-36 health survey score, Toronto extremity salvage score (TESS) and the Enneking score. Results: Thirteen patients underwent a single stage revision procedure and seven had been treated with a staged revision. At the latest follow up none of the 13 patients treated with a single stage procedure had evidence of ongoing infection. Of the seven patients who had a staged revision, 3 patients had evidence of ongoing infection. The mean pre operative Enneking score for the entire group was 17.1 points and this improved to 47.5 points post operatively (p< 0.0002). The mean pre operative TESS score for the entire group was 42% and this improved to 59% post operatively (p< 0.005). There was also a statistically significant improvement in all of the components of the SF-36 score. Conclusion: We believe that the use of a modular endo-prosthesis in the treatment of chronic prosthetic joint infection is a successful and viable option in eradicating infection, preserving the limb and providing a good functional result

Periprosthetic femoral fractures are increasing in incidence, and typically occur in frail elderly patients. They are similar to pathological fractures in many ways. The aims of treatment are the same, including 'getting it right first time' with a single operation, which allows immediate unrestricted weightbearing, with a low risk of complications, and one that avoids the creation of stress risers locally that may predispose to further peri-implant fracture. The surgical approach to these fractures, the associated soft-tissue handling, and exposure of the fracture are key elements in minimizing the high rate of complications. This annotation describes the approaches to the femur that can be used to facilitate the surgical management of peri- and interprosthetic fractures of the femur at all levels using either modern methods of fixation or revision arthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):593–601.

Aims

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.

Segmental resection of malignant bone disease in the femoral diaphysis with subsequent limb reconstruction is a major undertaking. This is a retrospective review of 23 patients who had undergone limb salvage by endoprosthetic replacement of the femoral diaphysis for a primary bone tumour between 1989 and 2005. There were 16 males and seven females, with a mean age of 41.3 years (10 to 68). The mean overall follow-up was for 97 months (3 to 240), and 120 months (42 to 240) for the living patients. The cumulative patient survival was 77% (95% confidence interval 63% to 95%) at ten years. Survival of the implant, with failure of the endoprosthesis as an endpoint, was 85% at five years and 68% (95% confidence interval 42% to 92%) at ten years. The revision rate was 22% and the overall rate of re-operation was 26%. Complications included deep infection (4%), breakage of the prosthesis (8%), periprosthetic fracture (4%), aseptic loosening (4%), local recurrence (4%) and metastases (17%). The 16 patients who retained their diaphyseal endoprosthesis had a mean Musculoskeletal Tumour Society score of 87% (67% to 93%). They were all able to comfortably perform most activities of daily living. Femoral diaphyseal endoprosthetic replacement is a viable option for reconstruction following segmental resection of malignant bone disease. It allows immediate weight-bearing, is associated with a good long-term functional outcome, has an acceptable complication and revision rate and, most importantly, does not appear to compromise patient survival