Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
The Bone & Joint Journal

Oncology
Dates
Year From

Year To
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 79-B, Issue 5 | Pages 773 - 779
1 Sep 1997
Abudu A Grimer RJ Cannon SR Carter SR Sneath RS

We treated 35 patients with primary malignant tumours of the periacetabular area by resection and prosthetic reconstruction of the defect. At a mean follow-up of 84 months, 15 patients (43%) were free from disease. The most common complications were deep infection (26%), local recurrence (24%) and recurrent dislocation of the hip (17%). The surviving patients achieved an average of 70% of their premorbid function.

This method of reconstruction has a high morbidity and should be performed only at specialist centres, but the functional and oncological outcomes are satisfactory.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 78-B, Issue 1 | Pages 5 - 13
1 Jan 1996
Unwin PS Cannon SR Grimer RJ Kemp HBS Sneath RS Walker PS

We have made a retrospective study of 1001 custom-made prostheses used as replacements after surgery for bone tumours. There were 493 distal femoral, 263 proximal femoral and 245 proximal tibial prostheses. Aseptic loosening was shown to be the principal mode of failure of the implants, and 71 patients had revision for aseptic loosening of a cemented intramedullary stem.

The probability of a patient surviving aseptic loosening for 120 months was 93.8% for a proximal femoral replacement, 67.4% for a distal femoral prosthesis and 58% for a proximal tibial implant. In patients with distal femoral replacements the age of the patient at the time of operation and the percentage of bone resected were related to the risk of aseptic loosening. Young patients with distal femoral prostheses in whom a high percentage of the femur had been replaced had the poorest prognosis for survival without aseptic loosening. The percentage of bone removed had a significant effect in the proximal tibial replacement group, but the age of the patient did not. By contrast, neither the age nor the percentage of bone removed was a factor after proximal femoral replacement.

The significance of these findings is discussed in relation to mechanical factors.