Aims

The aim of this study was to assess orthopaedic oncologic patient morbidity resulting from COVID-19 related institutional delays and surgical shutdowns during the first wave of the pandemic in New York, USA.

We investigated the eventual diagnosis in patients referred to a tertiary centre with a possible diagnosis of a primary bone malignancy.

We reviewed our database from between 1986 and 2010, during which time 5922 patients referred with a suspicious bone lesion had a confirmed diagnosis. This included bone sarcoma in 2205 patients (37%), benign bone tumour in 1309 (22%), orthopaedic conditions in 992 (17%), metastatic disease in 533 (9%), infection in 289 (5%) and haematological disease in 303 (5%). There was a similar frequency of all diagnoses at different ages except for metastatic disease. Only 0.6% of patients (17 of 2913) under the age of 35 years had metastatic disease compared with 17.1% (516 of 3009) of those over 35 years (p < 0.0001). Of the 17 patients under 35 years with metastatic disease, only four presented with an isolated lesion, had no past history of cancer and were systematically well.

Patients under the age of 35 years should have suitable focal imaging (plain radiography, CT or MRI) and simple systemic studies (blood tests and chest radiography). Reduction of the time to biopsy can be achieved by avoiding an unnecessary investigation for a primary tumour to rule out metastatic disease.

We retrospectively reviewed 71 histopathologically-confirmed bone and soft-tissue metastases of unknown origin at presentation. In order to identify the site of the primary tumour all 71 cases were examined with conventional procedures, including CT, serum tumour markers, a plain radiograph, ultrasound examination and endoscopic examinations, and 24 of the 71 cases underwent 2-deoxy-2-[F-18] fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET). This detected multiple bone metastases in nine patients and the primary site in 12 of the 24 cases; conventional studies revealed 16 primary tumours. There was no significant difference in sensitivity between FDG-PET and conventional studies.

The mean maximal standardised uptake value of the metastatic tumours was significantly higher than that of the primary tumours, which is likely to explain why FDG-PET did not provide better results. It was not superior to conventional procedures in the search for the primary site of bone and soft-tissue metastases; however, it seemed to be useful in the staging of malignancy.

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 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 report the results of distraction osteogenesis (callotasis) for the reconstruction of extensive defects after the excision of skeletal tumours in the limbs. Bone transport was performed in ten patients (five osteosarcomas and five giant-cell tumours), shortening-distraction in three (two osteosarcomas and one Ewing’s sarcoma), and distraction osteogenesis combined with an intramedullary nail to reduce the time of external fixation in six (three osteosarcomas, two chondro-sarcomas, and one malignant fibrous histiocytoma). The mean length of the defects after excision of the lesion was 8.4 cm. The mean external fixation index was 39.5 days/cm for the group treated by bone transport, 34.1 days/cm for the shortening-distraction group, and 24.0 days/cm for the group treated by distraction and an intramedullary nail. Functional evaluation gave excellent results in 12 patients, good in five and fair in two. There were ten complications in 19 patients, all of which were successfully treated. We also classified reconstruction using distraction osteogenesis into five types based on the location of the defects after resection of the tumour: type 1, diaphyseal; type 2, metaphyseal; type 3, epiphyseal; type 4, subarticular reconstruction; and type 5, arthrodesis. Our results suggest that reconstruction using distraction osteogenesis provides bone which will develop sufficient biomechanical strength and durability. It is beneficial in patients with an expectation of long-term survival and in growing children