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. 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

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.

We report our results in 24 children with malignant primary bone tumours of the distal femur treated with a Stanmore extendible endoprosthesis (SEER). This consists of a femoral component that can be lengthened, a constrained knee and an uncemented sliding tibial component which crosses the proximal tibial physeal plate perpendicularly. The average age of the patients at diagnosis was ten years and the mean follow-up was 4.7 years (2.5 to 7.9). The mean growth of the affected tibia was 76% (18 to 136) and of the fibula 83% (15 to 750) of the growth of the unaffected limb. Measurement of growth arrest lines showed that the mean growth of the proximal tibial physis on the affected side was 69% (43 to 100) of that of the normal side. The great variability in the growth of the physis cannot yet be explained

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.

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.

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 distal tibia and ankle joint for a primary bone tumour is a rarely attempted and technically challenging procedure. We report the outcome of six patients treated between 1981 and 2007. There were four males and two females, with a mean age of 43.5 years (15 to 75), and a mean follow-up of 9.6 years (1 to 27). No patient developed a local recurrence or metastasis. Two of the six went on to have a below-knee amputation for persistent infection after a mean 16 months (1 to 31). The four patients who retained their endoprosthesis had a mean musculoskeletal tumour society score of 70% and a mean Toronto extremity salvage score of 71%. All were pain free and able to perform most activities of daily living in comfort.

A custom-made endoprosthetic replacement of the distal tibia and ankle joint is a viable treatment option for carefully selected patients with a primary bone tumour. Patients should, however, be informed of the risk of infection and the potential need for amputation if this cannot be controlled.

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 have investigated whether improvements in design have altered the outcome for patients undergoing endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia following resection of a tumour. Survival of the implant and ‘servicing’ procedures have been documented using a prospective database.

A total of 194 patients underwent a proximal tibial replacement, with 95 having a fixed-hinge design and 99 a rotating-hinge with a hydroxyapatite collar; their median age was 21.5 years (10 to 74). At a mean follow-up of 14.7 years (5 to 29), 115 patients remain alive. The risk of revision for any reason in the fixed-hinge group was 32% at five years, 61% at ten years and 75% at 15 and 20 years, and in the rotating-hinge group 12% at five years, 25% at ten years and 30% at 15 years. Aseptic loosening was the most common reason for revision in the fixed-hinge knees, fracture of the implant in the early design of rotating hinges and infection in the current version. The risk of revision for aseptic loosening in the fixed-hinge knees was 46% at ten years. This was reduced to 3% in the rotating-hinge knee with a hydroxyapatite collar. The cemented, rotating hinge design currently offers the best chance of long-term survival of the prosthesis.

The best method of reconstruction after resection of malignant tumours of the tibial diaphysis is unknown. In the absence of any long-term studies analysing the results of intercalary endoprosthetic replacement, we present a retrospective review of 18 patients who underwent limb salvage using a tibial diaphyseal endoprosthetic replacement following excision of a malignant bone tumour. There were ten men and eight women with a mean age of 42.5 years (16 to 76). Mean follow-up was 58.5 months (20 to 141) for all patients and 69.3 months (20 to 141) for the 12 patients still alive. Cumulative patient survival was 59% (95% confidence interval (CI) 32 to 84) at five years. Implant survival was 63% (95% CI 35 to 90) at ten years. Four patients required revision to a proximal tibial replacement at a mean follow-up of 29 months (10 to 54). Complications included metastases in five patients, aseptic loosening in four, peri-prosthetic fracture in two, infection in one and local recurrence in one. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score and the mean Toronto Extremity Salvage Score were 23 (17 to 28) and 74% (53 to 91), respectively.

Although rates of complication and revision were high, custom-made tibial diaphyseal replacement following resection of malignant bone tumours enables early return to function and provides an attractive alternative to other surgical options, without apparent compromise of patient survival.

We report our early experience with the use of a non-invasive distal femoral expandable endoprosthesis in seven skeletally immature patients with osteosarcoma of the distal femur. The patients had a mean age of 12.1 years (9 to 15) at the time of surgery. The prosthesis was lengthened at appropriate intervals in outpatient clinics, without anaesthesia, using the principle of electromagnetic induction. The patients were functionally evaluated using the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society scoring system. The mean follow-up was 20.2 months (14 to 30). The prostheses were lengthened by a mean of 25 mm (4.25 to 55) and maintained a mean knee flexion of 110° (100° to 120°). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumour Society score was 68% (11 to 29). Complications developed in two patients; one developed a flexion deformity of 25° at the knee joint, which was subsequently overcome and one died of disseminated disease. The early results from patients treated with this device have been encouraging. The implant avoids multiple surgical procedures, general anaesthesia and assists in maintaining leg-length equality.

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.