header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 2 | Pages 266 - 270
1 Feb 2016
Stevenson JD McNair M Cribb GL Cool WP

Aims

Surgical intervention in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer is dependent on the estimated survival of the patient. The purpose of this paper was to identify factors that would predict survival so that specific decisions could be made in terms of surgical (or non-surgical) management.

Methods

The records of 113 consecutive patients (112 women) with metastatic breast cancer were analysed for clinical, radiological, serological and surgical outcomes. Their median age was 61 years (interquartile range 29 to 90) and the median duration of follow-up was 1.6 years (standard deviation (sd) 1.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0 to 5.9). The cumulative one- and five-year rates of survival were 68% and 16% (95% Cl 60 to 77 and 95% CI 10 to 26, respectively).


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