We conducted a case-control study to examine
the merit of silver-coated tumour prostheses. We reviewed 85 patients
with Agluna-treated (silver-coated) tumour implants treated between
2006 and 2011 and matched them with 85 control patients treated
between 2001 and 2011 with identical, but uncoated, tumour prostheses. . In all, 106 men and 64 women with a mean age of 42.2 years (18.4
to 90.4) were included in the study. There were 50 primary reconstructions
(29.4%); 79 one-stage revisions (46.5%) and 41 two-stage revisions
for infection (24.1%). The overall post-operative infection rate of the silver-coated
group was 11.8% compared with 22.4% for the control group (p = 0.033,
chi-square test). A total of seven of the ten infected prostheses
in the silver-coated group were treated successfully with debridement,
antibiotics, and implant retention compared with only six of the
19 patients (31.6%) in the control group (p = 0.048, chi-square
test). Three patients in the silver-coated group (3.5%) and 13 controls
(15.3%) had
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. A total of 14 patients underwent primary or revision reconstruction of a large femoral defect with a short remaining proximal femur using an interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate for fixation after oncological distal femoral and diaphyseal resections. The implant was attached to a standard endoprosthetic reconstruction system. The implant was attached to a standard endoprosthetic reconstruction system. None of the femoral revisions were amenable to standard cemented or uncemented stem fixation. Patient and disease characteristics, surgical history, final ambulatory statusAims
Methods
The use of a noninvasive growing endoprosthesis in the management
of primary bone tumours in children is well established. However,
the efficacy of such a prosthesis in those requiring a revision
procedure has yet to be established. The aim of this series was
to present our results using extendable prostheses for the revision
of previous endoprostheses. All patients who had a noninvasive growing endoprosthesis inserted
at the time of a revision procedure were identified from our database.
A total of 21 patients (seven female patients, 14 male) with a mean
age of 20.4 years (10 to 41) at the time of revision were included.
The indications for revision were mechanical failure, trauma or infection
with a residual leg-length discrepancy. The mean follow-up was 70
months (17 to 128). The mean shortening prior to revision was 44 mm
(10 to 100). Lengthening was performed in all but one patient with
a mean lengthening of 51 mm (5 to 140).Aims
Patients and Methods
