Aims. 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. Patients and Methods. 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). Results. The mean residual leg length discrepancy at final follow-up of 15 mm (1 to 35). Two patients developed a deep periprosthetic infection, of whom one required amputation to eradicate the infection; the other required two-stage revision. Implant survival according to Henderson criteria was 86% at two years and 72% at five years. When considering revision for any cause (including revision of the growing prosthesis to a non-growing prosthesis), revision-free implant survival was 75% at two years, but reduced to 55% at five years. Conclusion. Our experience indicates that revision surgery using a noninvasive growing endoprosthesis is a successful option for improving leg length discrepancy and should be considered in patients with significant leg-length discrepancy requiring a revision procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:370–7

In 251 patients over a period of 15 years an uncemented Kotz modular femoral and tibial reconstruction mega prosthesis was implanted after resection of a malignant tumour of the lower limb. Twenty-one patients (8.4%) underwent revision for aseptic loosening, again using an uncemented prosthesis, and five of these required a further revision procedure. The median follow-up time from the first revision was 60 months (11 to 168) and after a second revision, 33 months (2 to 50). The probability of a patient avoiding aseptic loosening for ten years was 96% for a proximal femoral, 76% for a distal femoral and 85% for a proximal tibial implant. At the time of follow-up all radiographs were assessed according to the International Symposium of Limb Salvage criteria. The first radiological signs of aseptic loosening were always seen at the most proximal or distal part of the anchorage stem at a mean of 12 months (4 to 23) after the first implantation. Using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score for evaluation, the clinical results showed a mean of 88% of normal function

Endoprosthetic reconstruction following resection of 31 tumours of the proximal femur in 30 patients was performed using a Wagner SL femoral revision stem. The mean follow-up was 25.6 months (0.6 to 130.0). Of the 28 patients with a metastasis, 27 died within a mean follow-up period of 18.1 months (0.6 to 56.3) after the operation, and the remaining patient was excluded from the study 44.4 months post-operatively when the stem was removed. The two patients with primary bone tumours were still alive at the latest follow-up of 81.0 and 130.0 months, respectively. One stem only was removed for suspected low-grade infection 44.4 months post-operatively. The worst-case survival rate with removal of the stem for any cause and/or loss to follow-up was 80.0% (95% confidence interval 44.9 to 100) at 130.0 months. The mean Karnofsky index increased from 44.2% (20% to 70%) pre-operatively to 59.7% (0% to 100%) post-operatively, and the mean Merle d’Aubigné score improved from 4.5 (0 to 15) to 12.0 (0 to 18). The mean post-operative Musculoskeletal Tumour Society score was 62.4% (3.3% to 100%). The Wagner SL femoral revision stem offers an alternative to special tumour prostheses for the treatment of primary and secondary tumours of the proximal femur. The mid-term results are very promising, but long-term experience is necessary

Aims

The aim of this study was to establish what happens to patients in the long term after endoprosthetic replacement for a primary malignant tumour of bone.

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

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and radiological outcomes of an antiprotrusio acetabular cage (APC) when used in the surgical treatment of periacetabular bone metastases. Methods. This retrospective cohort study using a prospectively collected database involved 56 patients who underwent acetabular reconstruction for periacetabular bone metastases or haematological malignancy using a single APC between January 2009 and 2020. The mean follow-up was 20 months (1 to 143). The primary outcome measure was implant survival. Postoperative radiographs were analyzed for loosening and failure. Patient and implant survival were assessed using a competing risk analysis. Secondary parameters included primary malignancy, oncological treatment, surgical factors, length of stay in hospital, and postoperative complications. Results. A total of 33 patients (59%) died during the study period at a mean of 15 months postoperatively (1 to 63). No patient had radiological evidence of loosening or failure. Acetabular component survival was 100%. Three patients (5.4%) had further surgery; one (1.8%) underwent revision of the femoral component for dislocation, one required debridement with implant retention for periprosthetic joint infection, and one required closed reduction for dislocation. Using death as a competing risk, at 100 months, the probability of revision was 0.036 and the risk of death was 0.84. Conclusion. With appropriate patient selection, the antiprotrusio cage offers good implant survival, with a reasonable perioperative complication rate in this high-risk group of patients when managing metastatic disease or haematological malignancy around the acetabulum. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):504–509

Aims. The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is the only mechanical connection between the axial skeleton and lower limbs. Following iliosacral resection, there is debate on whether reconstruction of the joint is necessary. There is a paucity of data comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing reconstruction and those who are not formally reconstructed. Methods. A total of 60 patients (25 females, 35 males; mean age 39 years (SD 18)) undergoing iliosacral resection were reviewed. Most resections were performed for primary malignant tumours (n = 54; 90%). The mean follow-up for surviving patients was nine years (2 to 19). Results. Overall, 27 patients (45%) were reconstructed, while 33 (55%) had no formal reconstruction. There was no difference in the use of chemotherapy (p = 1.000) or radiotherapy (p = 0.292) between the groups. Patients with no reconstruction had a mean larger tumour (11 cm (SD 5) vs 8 cm (SD 4); p = 0.014), mean shorter operating times (664 mins (SD 195) vs 1,324 mins (SD 381); p = 0.012), and required fewer blood units (8 (SD 7) vs 14 (SD 11); p = 0.012). Patients undergoing a reconstruction were more likely to have a deep infection (48% vs 12%; p = 0.003). Nine reconstructed patients had a hardware failure, with five requiring revision. Postoperatively 55 (92%) patients were ambulatory, with no difference in the proportion of ambulatory patients (89% vs 94%; p = 0.649) or mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (59% vs 65%; p = 0.349) score between patients who did or did not have a reconstruction. The ten-year disease-specific survival was 69%, with no difference between patients who were reconstructed and those who were not (78% vs 45%; p = 0.316). There was no difference in the rate of metastasis between the two groups (hazard ratio (HR) 2.78; p = 0.102). Conclusion. Our results demonstrate that SIJ reconstruction is associated with longer operating times, greater need for blood transfusion, and more postoperative infections, without any improvement in functional outcomes when compared to patients who did not have formal SIJ reconstruction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):93–98

Aims. 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. Methods. 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 status. ,. and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score were recorded. The percentage of proximal femur remaining was calculated from follow-up radiographs. Results. All 14 at-risk native hip joints were preserved at a mean final follow-up of 6.0 years (SD 3.7), despite a short residual femur, often after proximal osteotomies through the lesser trochanter. Overall, 13 of 14 stems had long-term successful fixation. Eight patients required no reoperation. Three patients required reoperation due to implant-related issues, and three patients required reoperation for wound healing problems or infection. There were no dislocations or fractures. At final follow-up the mean MSTS score was 24.9 (SD 4.1). Nine patients required no ambulation aids, and only one had a Trendelenburg gait. Conclusion. This interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate reliably preserves native hip joint anatomy and function after large femoral resection with a short remaining proximal femur, both in the primary and revision setting. This is particularly important for preventing or delaying total femoral arthroplasty in young patients after oncological reconstruction. Hip abductor strength and function could be maintained by this method, and the risk of dislocation eliminated. The success of this technique in this modest series should be verified in a larger collaborative study and will be of interest to revision surgeons and oncologists. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):398–404

Aims. We aimed to examine the long-term mechanical survivorship, describe the modes of all-cause failure, and identify risk factors for mechanical failure of all-polyethylene tibial components in endoprosthetic reconstruction. Methods. This is a retrospective database review of consecutive endoprosthetic reconstructions performed for oncological indications between 1980 and 2019. Patients with all-polyethylene tibial components were isolated and analyzed for revision for mechanical failure. Outcomes included survival of the all-polyethylene tibial component, revision surgery categorized according to the Henderson Failure Mode Classification, and complications and functional outcome, as assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score at the final follow-up. Results. A total of 278 patients were identified with 289 all-polyethylene tibial components. Mechanical survival was 98.4%, 91.1%, and 85.2% at five, ten and 15 years, respectively. A total of 15 mechanical failures were identified at the final follow-up. Of the 13 all-polyethylene tibial components used for revision of a previous tibial component, five (38.5%) failed mechanically. Younger patients (< 18 years vs > 18 years; p = 0.005) and those used as revision components (p < 0.001) had significantly increased rates of failure. Multivariate logistic regression modelling showed revision status to be a positive risk factor for failure (odds ratio (OR) 19.498, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.598 to 82.676) and increasing age was a negative risk factor for failure (OR 0.927, 95% CI 0.872 to 0.987). Age-stratified risk analysis showed that age > 24 years was no longer a statistically significant risk factor for failure. The final mean MSTS score for all patients was 89% (8.5% to 100.0%). Conclusion. The long-term mechanical survivorship of all-polyethylene tibial components when used for tumour endoprostheses was excellent. Tumour surgeons should consider using these components for their durability and the secondary benefits of reduced cost and ease of removal and revision. However, caution should be taken when using all-polyethylene tibial components in the revision setting as a significantly higher rate of mechanical failure was seen in this group of patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J. 2020;102-B(2):170–176

Aims. Orthopaedic and reconstructive surgeons are faced with large defects after the resection of malignant tumours of the sacrum. Spinopelvic reconstruction is advocated for resections above the level of the S1 neural foramina or involving the sacroiliac joint. Fixation may be augmented with either free vascularized fibular flaps (FVFs) or allograft fibular struts (AFSs) in a cathedral style. However, there are no studies comparing these reconstructive techniques. Methods. We reviewed 44 patients (23 female, 21 male) with a mean age of 40 years (SD 17), who underwent en bloc sacrectomy for a malignant tumour of the sacrum with a reconstruction using a total (n = 20), subtotal (n = 2), or hemicathedral (n = 25) technique. The reconstructions were supplemented with a FVF in 25 patients (57%) and an AFS in 19 patients (43%). The mean length of the strut graft was 13 cm (SD 4). The mean follow-up was seven years (SD 5). Results. There was no difference in the mean age, sex, length of graft, size of the tumour, or the proportion of patients with a history of treatment with radiotherapy in the two groups. Reconstruction using an AFS was associated with nonunion (odds ratio 7.464 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77 to 31.36); p = 0.007) and a significantly longer mean time to union (12 months (SD 3) vs eight (SD 3); p = 0.001) compared with a reconstruction using a FVF. Revision for a pseudoarthrosis was more likely to occur in the AFS group compared with the FVF group (hazard ratio 3.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 19.80); p = 0.109); however, this was not significant. Following the procedure, 32 patients (78%) were mobile with a mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score 93 of 52% (SD 24%). There was a significantly higher mean score in patients reconstructed with a FVF compared with an AFS (62% vs 42%; p = 0.003). Conclusion. Supplementation of spinopelvic reconstruction with a FVF was associated with a shorter time to union and a trend towards a reduced risk of hardware failure secondary to nonunion compared with reconstruction using an AFS. Spinopelvic fixation supplemented with a FVF is our preferred technique for reconstruction following resection of a sacral tumour. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1414–1420

Aims. Rotating-hinge knee prostheses are commonly used to reconstruct the distal femur after resection of a tumour, despite the projected long-term burden of reoperation due to complications. Few studies have examined the factors that influence their failure and none, to our knowledge, have used competing risk models to do so. The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors for failure of a rotating-hinge knee distal femoral arthroplasty using the Fine-Gray competing risk model. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 209 consecutive patients who, between 1991 and 2016, had undergone resection of the distal femur for tumour and reconstruction using a rotating-hinge knee prosthesis. The study endpoint was failure of the prosthesis, defined as removal of the femoral component, the tibial component, or the bone-implant fixation; major revision (exchange of the femoral component, tibial component, or the bone-implant fixation); or amputation. Results. Multivariate Fine-Gray regression analyses revealed different hazards for each Henderson failure mode: percentage of femoral resection (p = 0.001) and extent of quadriceps muscle resection (p = 0.005) for overall prosthetic failure; extent of quadriceps muscle resection (p = 0.002) and fixation of femoral component (p = 0.011) for type 2 failure (aseptic loosening); age (p = 0.009) and percentage of femoral resection (p = 0.019) for type 3 failure (mechanical failure); and type of joint resection (p = 0.037) for type 4 (infection) were independent predictors. A bone stem ratio of > 2.5 reliably predicted aseptic loosening. Conclusion. We identified independent risk factors for overall and cause-specific prosthetic failure after rotating-hinge knee distal femoral arthroplasty using a competing risk Fine-Gray model. A bone stem ratio > 2.5 reliably predicts aseptic loosening. An accurate knowledge of the risks of distal femoral arthroplasty after resection for tumour assists surgical planning and managing patient expectations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1405–1413

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.

Aims

The scapula is a rare site for a primary bone tumour. Only a small number of series have studied patient outcomes after treatment. Previous studies have shown a high rate of recurrence, with functional outcomes determined by the preservation of the glenohumeral joint and deltoid. The purpose of the current study was to report the outcome of patients who had undergone tumour resection that included the scapula.

Aims

We performed a systematic literature review to define features of patients, treatment, and biological behaviour of multicentric giant cell tumour (GCT) of bone.

Aims

Dislocation of the hip remains a major complication after periacetabular tumour resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction. The position of the acetabular component is an important modifiable factor for surgeons in determining the risk of postoperative dislocation. We investigated the significance of horizontal, vertical, and sagittal displacement of the hip centre of rotation (COR) on postoperative dislocation using a CT-based 3D model, as well as other potential risk factors for dislocation.

Aims. Aseptic loosening is a major cause of failure in cemented endoprosthetic reconstructions. This paper presents the long-term outcomes of a custom-designed cross-pin fixation construct designed to minimize rotational stress and subsequent aseptic loosening in selected patients. The paper will also examine the long-term survivorship and modes of failure when using this technique. Patients and Methods. A review of 658 consecutive, prospectively collected cemented endoprosthetic reconstructions for oncological diagnoses at a single centre between 1980 and 2017 was performed. A total of 51 patients were identified with 56 endoprosthetic implants with cross-pin fixation, 21 of which were implanted following primary resection of tumour. Locations included distal femoral (n = 36), proximal femoral (n = 7), intercalary (n = 6), proximal humeral (n = 3), proximal tibial (n = 3), and distal humeral (n = 1). Results. The median follow-up was 132 months (interquartile range (IQR) 44 to 189). In all, 20 stems required revision: eight for infection, five for structural failure, five for aseptic loosening, and two for tumour progression. Mechanical survivorship at five, ten, and 15 years was 84%, 78%, and 78%, respectively. Mechanical failure rate varied by location, with no mechanical failures of proximal femoral constructs and distal femoral survivorship of 82%, 77%, and 77% at five, ten, and 15 years. The survivorship of primary constructs at five years was 74%, with no failure after 40 months, while the survivorship for revision constructs was 89%, 80%, and 80% at five, ten, and 15 years. . Conclusion. The rate of mechanical survivorship in our series is similar to those reported for other methods of reconstruction for short diaphyseal segments, such as compressive osseointegration. The mechanical failure rate differed by location, while there was no substantial difference in long-term survival between primary and revision reconstructions. Overall, custom cross-pin fixation is a viable option for endoprosthetic reconstruction of short metaphyseal segments with an acceptable rate of mechanical failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:724–731

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of application of a 3D-printed megaprosthesis with hemiarthroplasty design for defects of the distal humerus or proximal ulna following tumour resection.

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

Aims

Iliosacral sarcoma resections have been shown to have high rates of local recurrence (LR) and poor overall survival. There is also no universal classification for the resection of pelvic sarcomas invading the sacrum. This study proposes a novel classification system and analyzes the survival and risk of recurrence, when using this system.

Aims

Giant cell tumours (GCTs) of the proximal femur are rare, and there is no consensus about the best method of filling the defect left by curettage. In this study, we compared the outcome of using a fibular strut allograft and bone cement to reconstruct the bone defect after extended curettage of a GCT of the proximal femur.