Aims. Osteoarticular reconstruction of the distal femur in childhood has the advantage of preserving the tibial physis. However, due to the small size of the distal femur, matching the host bone with an osteoarticular allograft is challenging. In this study, we compared the outcomes and complications of a resurfaced allograft-prosthesis composite (rAPC) with those of an osteoarticular allograft to reconstruct the distal femur in children. Methods. A retrospective analysis of 33 skeletally immature children with a malignant tumour of the distal femur, who underwent resection and reconstruction with a rAPC (n = 15) or osteoarticular allograft (n = 18), was conducted. The median age of the patients was ten years (interquartile range (IQR) 9 to 11) in the osteoarticular allograft group and nine years (IQR 8 to 10) in the rAPC group (p = 0.781). The median follow-up of the patients was seven years (IQR 4 to 8) in the osteoarticular allograft group and six years (IQR 3 to 7) in the rAPC group (p = 0.483). Limb function was evaluated using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score. Results. At final follow-up, the knee was unstable in 9/18 patients (50%) in the osteoarticular allograft group and 2/15 patients (13%) in the rAPC group (p = 0.026). The median range of motion (ROM) of the knee was 117° (IQR 115° to 120°) in the osteoarticular allograft group and 100° (IQR 95° to 105°) in the rAPC group (p < 0.001). The median MSTS score was 25 (IQR 23 to 26) in the osteoarticular allograft group and 28 (IQR 26 to 29) in the rAPC group (p = 0.007). Osteoarthritic change was detected in 11/18 patients (61%) in the osteoarticular allograft group and in 4/15 (26%) patients in the rAPC group (p = 0.048). Conclusion. In our series, a resurfaced allograft-prosthesis composite provided better knee stability and function, with a lower rate of osteoarthritis; an osteoarticular allograft was associated with better knee ROM. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1174–1179

Aims. Dislocation rates are reportedly lower in patients requiring proximal femoral hemiarthroplasty than for patients undergoing hip arthroplasty for neoplasia. Without acetabular replacement, pain due to acetabular wear necessitating revision surgery has been described. We aimed to determine whether wear of the native acetabulum following hemiarthroplasty necessitates revision surgery with secondary replacement of the acetabulum after proximal femoral replacement (PFR) for tumour reconstruction. Patients and Methods. We reviewed 100 consecutive PFRs performed between January 2003 and January 2013 without acetabular resurfacing. The procedure was undertaken in 74 patients with metastases, for a primary bone tumour in 20 and for myeloma in six. There were 48 male and 52 female patients, with a mean age of 61.4 years (19 to 85) and median follow-up of two years (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5 to 3.7 years). In total, 52 patients presented with a pathological fracture and six presented with failed fixation of a previously instrumented pathological fracture. Results. All patients underwent reconstruction with either a unipolar (n = 64) or bipolar (n = 36) articulation. There were no dislocations and no acetabular resurfacings. Articular wear was graded using the criteria of Baker et al from 0 to 3, where by 0 is normal; grade 1 represents a narrowing of articular cartilage and no bone erosion; grade 2 represents acetabular bone erosion and early migration; and grade 3 represents protrusio acetabuli. Of the 49 patients with radiological follow-up greater than one year, six demonstrated grade 1 acetabular wear and two demonstrated grade 2 acetabular wear. The remainder demonstrated no radiographic evidence of wear. Median medial migration was 0.3 mm (IQR -0.2 to 0.7) and superior migration was 0.3 mm (IQR -0.2 to 0.6). No relationship between unipolar versus bipolar articulations and wear was evident. Conclusion. Hemiarthroplasty PFRs for tumour reconstruction eliminate joint instability and, in the short to medium term, do not lead to native acetabular wear necessitating later acetabular resurfacing. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100B:101–8

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.

The outcome of tibial allograft reconstruction after resection of a tumour is inconsistent and has a high rate of failure. There are few reports on the use of tibial allografts in children with open growth plates. We performed 21 allograft reconstructions (16 osteoarticular, five intercalary) in 19 consecutive patients between seven and 17 years of age. Two had Ewing’s sarcoma, one an adamantinoma and 16 osteosarcoma, one with multifocal disease. Five patients have died; the other 14 were free from disease at the time of follow-up. Six surviving patients (eight allograft reconstructions) continue to have good or excellent function at a mean of 59 months (14 to 132). One patient has poor function at 31 months. The other seven patients have a good or excellent function after additional procedures including exchange of the allograft and resurfacing or revision to an endoprosthesis at a mean of 101 months (43 to 198). The additional operations were performed at a mean of 47 months (20 to 84) after the first reconstruction. With the use of allograft reconstruction in growing children, joints and growth plates may be preserved, at least partially. Although our results remain inconsistent, tibial allograft reconstruction in selected patients may restore complete and durable function of the limb

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).

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe, analyze, and compare the survival, functional outcome, and complications of minimally invasive (MI) and non-invasive (NI) lengthening total femoral prostheses.

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.

Excision of the proximal femur for tumour with prosthetic reconstruction using a bipolar femoral head places a considerable load on the unreplaced acetabulum.

We retrospectively reviewed the changes which occur around the affected hip joint by evaluating the post-operative radiographs of 65 consecutive patients who underwent proximal prosthetic arthroplasty of the femur, and in whom an acetabular component had not been used. There were 37 men and 28 women with a mean age of 57.3 years (17 to 93). Radiological assessment included the extent of degenerative change in the acetabulum, heterotopic ossification, and protrusio acetabuli.

The mean follow-up was 9.1 years (2 to 11.8). Degenerative changes in the acetabulum were seen in three patients (4.6%), Brooker grade 1 or 2 heterotopic ossification in 17 (26%) and protrusion of the prosthetic head in nine (13.8%).

A total of eight patients (12.3%) needed a revision. Five were revised to the same type of prosthesis and three (4.6%) were converted to a total hip arthroplasty.

We conclude that radiological evidence of degenerative change, heterotopic ossification and protrusion occur in a few patients who undergo prosthetic arthroplasty of the proximal femur for tumour. The limited extent of these changes and the lack of associated symptoms do not justify the routine arthroplasty of the acetabulum in these patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1704–9

We retrospectively studied 14 patients with proximal and diaphyseal tumours and disappearing bone (Gorham’s) disease of the humerus treated with wide resection and reconstruction using an allograft-resurfacing composite (ARC). There were ten women and four men, with a mean age of 35 years (8 to 69). At a mean follow-up of 25 months (10 to 89), two patients had a fracture of the allograft. In one of these it was revised with a similar ARC and in the other with an intercalary prosthesis. A further patient had an infection and a fracture of the allograft that was revised with a megaprosthesis. In all patients with an ARC, healing of the ARC-host bone interface was observed. One patient had failure of the locking mechanism of the total elbow replacement. The mean post-operative Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score for the upper extremity was 77% (46.7% to 86.7%), which represents good and excellent results; one patient had a poor result (46.7%).

In the short term ARC effectively relieves pain and restores shoulder function in patients with wide resection of the proximal humerus. Fracture and infection remain significant complications.

Bone sarcomas are rare cancers and orthopaedic surgeons come across them infrequently, sometimes unexpectedly during surgical procedures. We investigated the outcomes of patients who underwent a surgical procedure where sarcomas were found unexpectedly and were subsequently referred to our unit for treatment. We identified 95 patients (44 intra-lesional excisions, 35 fracture fixations, 16 joint replacements) with mean age of 48 years (11 to 83); 60% were males (n = 57). Local recurrence arose in 40% who underwent limb salvage surgery versus 12% who had an amputation. Despite achieving local control, overall survival was worse for patients treated with amputation rather than limb salvage (54% vs 75% five-year survival). Factors that negatively influenced survival were invasive primary surgery (fracture fixation, joint replacement), a delay of greater than two months until referral to our oncology service, and high-grade tumours. Survival in these circumstances depends mostly on factors that are determined prior to definitive treatment by a tertiary orthopaedic oncology unit. Limb salvage in this group of patients is associated with a higher rate of inadequate marginal surgery and, consequently, higher local recurrence rates than amputation, but should still be attempted whenever possible, as local control is not the primary determinant of survival.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:665–72.

We investigated whether improvements in design have altered the outcome for patients undergoing endoprosthetic replacement of the distal femur after resection of a tumour. Survival of the implant and ‘servicing’ procedures have been documented using a prospective database, review of the design of the implant and case records. In total, 335 patients underwent a distal femoral replacement, 162 having a fixed-hinge design and 173 a rotating-hinge. The median age of the patients was 24 years (interquartile range 17 to 48).

A total of 192 patients remained alive with a mean follow-up of 12 years (5 to 30). The risk of revision for any reason was 17% at five years, 33% at ten years and 58% at 20 years. Aseptic loosening was the main reason for revision of the fixed-hinge knees while infection and fracture of the stem were the most common for the rotating-hinge implant. The risk of revision for aseptic loosening was 35% at ten years with the fixed-hinge knee, which has, however, been replaced by the rotating-hinge knee with a hydroxyapatite collar. The overall risk of revision for any reason fell by 52% when the rotating-hinge implant was used.

Improvements in the design of distal femoral endoprostheses have significantly decreased the need for revision operations, but infection remains a serious problem. We believe that a cemented, rotating-hinge prosthesis with a hydroxyapatite collar offers the best chance of long-term survival of the prosthesis.

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 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.

We reviewed retrospectively the results in 211 consecutive patients who had undergone limb salvage for bone neoplasia with endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur (96), distal femur (78), proximal tibia (30) and total femur (7). Their mean age was 50 years (11 to 86) and the mean follow-up period was 37.3 months (1 to 204). A total of 35 (16.6%) prostheses failed. Overall, implant survival was 78% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.54) at five years, 60% (95% CI 0.93 to 2.35) at ten years and 60% (95% CI 1.27 to 3.88) at 15 years. Survivorship of the limb was 97.6% (95% CI 1.73 to 3.35) at ten years. The gender, age, diagnosis and location of the tumour were not prognostic variables for failure. Modular endoprosthetic replacement in the lower limb is a durable long-term reconstructive option, with the implants generally outlasting the patient.

In skeletally immature patients, resection of bone tumours and reconstruction of the lower limb often results in leg-length discrepancy. The Stanmore non-invasive extendible endoprosthesis, which uses electromagnetic induction, allows post-operative lengthening without anaesthesia. Between 2002 and 2009, 55 children with a mean age of 11.4 years (5 to 16) underwent reconstruction with this prosthesis; ten patients (18.2%) died of disseminated disease and one child underwent amputation due to infection. We reviewed 44 patients after a mean follow-up of 41.2 months (22 to 104). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 24.7 (8 to 30) and the Toronto Extremity Salvage score was 92.3% (55.2% to 99.0%). There was no local recurrence of tumour. Complications developed in 16 patients (29.1%) and ten (18.2%) underwent revision.

The mean length gained per patient was 38.6 mm (3.5 to 161.5), requiring a mean of 11.3 extensions (1 to 40), and ten component exchanges were performed in nine patients (16.4%) after attaining the maximum lengthening capacity of the implant. There were 11 patients (20%) who were skeletally mature at follow-up, ten of whom had equal leg lengths and nine had a full range of movement of the hip and knee.

This is the largest reported series using non-invasive extendible endoprostheses after excision of primary bone tumours in skeletally immature patients. The technique produces a good functional outcome, with prevention of limb-length discrepancy at skeletal maturity.

Endoprosthetic replacement of the pelvis is one of the most challenging types of limb-salvage surgery, with a high rate of complications. In an attempt to reduce this and build greater versatility into the reconstruction process, a new type of pelvic endoprosthesis was developed in 2003, based on the old McKee-Farrar prosthesis. This study reviews the outcomes in 27 patients who had an ice-cream cone pelvic prosthesis inserted at two different specialist bone tumour centres in the United Kingdom over the past six years. The indications for treatment included primary bone tumours in 19 patients and metastatic disease in two, and six implants were inserted following failure of a previous pelvic reconstruction. Most of the patients had a P2+P3 resection as classified by Enneking, and most had resection of the ilium above the sciatic notch. The mean age of the patients at operation was 49 years (13 to 81). Complications occurred in ten patients (37.0%), of which dislocation was the most common, affecting four patients (14.8%). A total of three patients (11.1%) developed a deep infection around the prosthesis but all were successfully controlled by early intervention and two patients (7.4%) developed a local recurrence, at the same time as widespread metastases appeared. In one patient the prosthesis was removed for severe pain.

This method of treatment is still associated with high morbidity, but early results are promising. Complications are diminishing with increasing experience.