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. 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%).Aims
Methods
Limb salvage for pelvic sarcomas involving the acetabulum is a major surgical challenge. There remains no consensus about what is the optimum type of reconstruction after resection of the tumour. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes in these patients according to the methods of periacetabular reconstruction. The study involved a consecutive series of 122 patients with a periacetabular bone sarcoma who underwent limb-salvage surgery involving a custom-made prosthesis in 65 (53%), an ice-cream cone prosthesis in 21 (17%), an extracorporeal irradiated autograft in 18 (15%), and nonskeletal reconstruction in 18 (15%).Aims
Methods
Hip reconstruction after resection of a periacetabular chondrosarcoma is complex and associated with a high rate of complications. Previous reports have compared no reconstruction with historical techniques that are no longer used. The aim of this study was to compare the results of tantalum acetabular reconstruction to both historical techniques and no reconstruction. We reviewed 66 patients (45 males and 21 females) with a mean age of 53 years (24 to 81) who had undergone acetabular resection for chondrosarcoma. A total of 36 patients (54%) underwent acetabular reconstruction, most commonly with a saddle prosthesis (n = 13; 36%) or a tantalum total hip arthroplasty (THA) (n = 10; 28%). Mean follow-up was nine years (SD 4).Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to report the results of custom-made endoprostheses with extracortical plates plus or minus a short, intramedullary stem aimed at preserving the physis after resection of bone sarcomas in children. Between 2007 and 2017, 18 children aged less than 16 years old who underwent resection of bone sarcomas, leaving ≤ 5 cm of bone from the physis, and reconstruction with a custom-made endoprosthesis were reviewed. Median follow-up was 67 months (interquartile range 45 to 91). The tumours were located in the femur in 11 patients, proximal humerus in six, and proximal tibia in one.Aims
Patients and Methods
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. 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).Aims
Patients and Methods
We evaluated the clinical results and complications
after extra-articular resection of the distal femur and/or proximal
tibia and reconstruction with a tumour endoprosthesis (MUTARS) in
59 patients (mean age 33 years (11 to 74)) with malignant bone or
soft-tissue tumours. According to a Kaplan–Meier analysis, limb
survival was 76% (95% confidence interval (CI) 64.1 to 88.5) after
a mean follow-up of 4.7 years (one month to 17 years). Peri-prosthetic infection
was the most common indication for subsequent amputation (eight
patients). Survival of the prosthesis without revision was 48% (95%
CI 34.8 to 62.0) at two years and 25% (95% CI 11.1 to 39.9) at five years
post-operatively. Failure of the prosthesis was due to deep infection
in 22 patients (37%), aseptic loosening in ten patients (17%), and
peri-prosthetic fracture in six patients (10%). Wear of the bearings
made a minor revision necessary in 12 patients (20%). The mean Musculoskeletal
Tumor Society score was 23 (10 to 29). An extensor lag >
10° was
noted in ten patients (17%). These results suggest that limb salvage after extra-articular
resection with a tumour prosthesis can achieve good functional results
in most patients, although the rates of complications and subsequent
amputation are higher than in patients treated with intra-articular
resection. Cite this article:
Guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic bone
disease (MBD) have been available to the orthopaedic community for
more than a decade, with little improvement in service provision
to this increasingly large patient group. Improvements in adjuvant
and neo-adjuvant treatments have increased both the number and overall
survival of patients living with MBD. As a consequence the incidence
of complications of MBD presenting to surgeons has increased and
is set to increase further. The British Orthopaedic Oncology Society
(BOOS) are to publish more revised detailed guidelines on what represents
‘best practice’ in managing patients with MBD. This article is designed
to coincide with and publicise new BOOS guidelines and once again
champion the cause of patients with MBD. A series of short cases highlight common errors frequently being
made in managing patients with MBD despite the availability of guidelines.Objectives
Methods
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 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.
