Aims. 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. Methods. 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%). Results. At a mean 74.4 months follow-up, the overall revision rate was 15.0%. Primary malignancy (p < 0.001) and age < 50 years (p < 0.001) were risk factors for revision. The risks of death and implant failure were similar in patients with primary disease (p = 0.872), but the risk of death was significantly greater for patients who had metastatic bone disease (p < 0.001). Acetabular-related implant failures comprised 74.3% of revisions; however, no difference between hemiarthroplasty or arthroplasty groups (p = 0.209), or between monopolar or bipolar hemiarthroplasties (p = 0.307), was observed. There was greater radiological wear in patients with longer follow-up and primary bone malignancy. Re-revision rates following a revision PFEPR was 34.3%, with dual-mobility bearings having the lowest rate of instability and re-revision (15.4%). Conclusion. Hemiarthroplasty and arthroplasty PFEPRs carry the same risk of revision in the medium term, and is primarily due to acetabular complications. There is no difference in revision rates or erosion between monopolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasties. The main causes of failure were acetabular wear in the hemiarthroplasty group and instability in the arthroplasty group. These risks should be balanced and patient prognosis considered when contemplating the bearing choice. Dual-mobility, constrained bearings, or
Excision of the proximal femur for tumour with
prosthetic reconstruction using a bipolar femoral head places a considerable
load on the unreplaced acetabulum. We retrospectively reviewed the changes which occur around the
affected hip joint by evaluating the post-operative radiographs
of 65 consecutive patients who underwent proximal prosthetic arthroplasty
of the femur, and in whom an acetabular component had not been used.
There were 37 men and 28 women with a mean age of 57.3 years (17
to 93). Radiological assessment included the extent of degenerative
change in the acetabulum, heterotopic ossification, and protrusio
acetabuli. The mean follow-up was 9.1 years (2 to 11.8). Degenerative changes
in the acetabulum were seen in three patients (4.6%), Brooker grade
1 or 2 heterotopic ossification in 17 (26%) and protrusion of the
prosthetic head in nine (13.8%). A total of eight patients (12.3%) needed a revision. Five were
revised to the same type of prosthesis and three (4.6%) were converted
to a total hip arthroplasty. We conclude that radiological evidence of degenerative change,
heterotopic ossification and protrusion occur in a few patients
who undergo prosthetic arthroplasty of the proximal femur for tumour.
The limited extent of these changes and the lack of associated symptoms
do not justify the routine arthroplasty of the acetabulum in these patients. Cite this article:
Endoprosthetic replacement of the pelvis is one of the most challenging types of limb-salvage surgery, with a high rate of complications. In an attempt to reduce this and build greater versatility into the reconstruction process, a new type of pelvic endoprosthesis was developed in 2003, based on the old McKee-Farrar prosthesis. This study reviews the outcomes in 27 patients who had an ice-cream cone pelvic prosthesis inserted at two different specialist bone tumour centres in the United Kingdom over the past six years. The indications for treatment included primary bone tumours in 19 patients and metastatic disease in two, and six implants were inserted following failure of a previous pelvic reconstruction. Most of the patients had a P2+P3 resection as classified by Enneking, and most had resection of the ilium above the sciatic notch. The mean age of the patients at operation was 49 years (13 to 81). Complications occurred in ten patients (37.0%), of which dislocation was the most common, affecting four patients (14.8%). A total of three patients (11.1%) developed a deep infection around the prosthesis but all were successfully controlled by early intervention and two patients (7.4%) developed a local recurrence, at the same time as widespread metastases appeared. In one patient the prosthesis was removed for severe pain. This method of treatment is still associated with high morbidity, but early results are promising. Complications are diminishing with increasing experience.
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.
