Aims. To evaluate mid-to long-term patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of endoprosthetic reconstruction after resection of malignant tumours arising around the knee, and to investigate the risk factors for unfavourable PROMs. Methods. The medical records of 75 patients who underwent surgery between 2000 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed, and 44 patients who were alive and available for follow-up (at a mean of 9.7 years postoperatively) were included in the study. Leg length discrepancy was measured on whole-leg radiographs, and functional assessment was performed with PROMs (Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and Comprehensive Outcome Measure for Musculoskeletal Oncology Lower Extremity (COMMON-LE)) with two different aspects. The thresholds for unfavourable PROMs were determined using anchor questions regarding satisfaction, and the risk factors for unfavourable PROMs were investigated. Results. The thresholds for favourable TESS and COMMON were 64.8 and 70.4 points, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that age at surgery (p = 0.004) and postoperative leg length discrepancy (p = 0.043) were significant risk factors for unfavourable TESS results, while age at surgery (p < 0.001) was a significant risk factor for unfavourable COMMON-LE results. Following receiver operating characteristic analysis, the threshold for both TESS and COMMON-LE was 29 years of age at surgery. Additionally, a leg length discrepancy of 8.2 mm was the threshold for unfavourable TESS. Conclusion. Patients aged > 29 years at the time of surgery require appropriate preoperative counselling and adequate postoperative physical and socioemotional support. Reconstruction equivalent to the length of the resected bone can reduce the risk of functional disabilities in daily living. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):906–913

We reviewed our initial seven-year experience with a non-invasive extendible prosthesis in 34 children with primary bone tumours. The distal femur was replaced in 25 cases, total femur in five, proximal femur in one and proximal tibia in three. The mean follow-up was 44 months (15 to 86) and 27 patients (79%) remain alive. The prostheses were lengthened by an electromagnetic induction mechanism in an outpatient setting and a mean extension of 32 mm (4 to 80) was achieved without anaesthesia. There were lengthening complications in two children: failed lengthening in one and the formation of scar tissue in the other. Deep infection developed in six patients (18%) and local recurrence in three. A total of 11 patients required further surgery to the leg. Amputation was necessary in five patients (20%) and a two-stage revision in another. There were no cases of loosening, but two patients had implant breakage and required revision. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional score was 85% (60% to 100%) at last known follow-up. These early results demonstrate that the non-invasive extendible prosthesis allows successful lengthening without surgical intervention, but the high incidence of infection is a cause for concern.

Aims

Dislocation of the hip remains a major complication after periacetabular tumour resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction. The position of the acetabular component is an important modifiable factor for surgeons in determining the risk of postoperative dislocation. We investigated the significance of horizontal, vertical, and sagittal displacement of the hip centre of rotation (COR) on postoperative dislocation using a CT-based 3D model, as well as other potential risk factors for dislocation.

Aims. 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. Patients and Methods. 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). Results. The mean residual leg length discrepancy at final follow-up of 15 mm (1 to 35). Two patients developed a deep periprosthetic infection, of whom one required amputation to eradicate the infection; the other required two-stage revision. Implant survival according to Henderson criteria was 86% at two years and 72% at five years. When considering revision for any cause (including revision of the growing prosthesis to a non-growing prosthesis), revision-free implant survival was 75% at two years, but reduced to 55% at five years. Conclusion. Our experience indicates that revision surgery using a noninvasive growing endoprosthesis is a successful option for improving leg length discrepancy and should be considered in patients with significant leg-length discrepancy requiring a revision procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:370–7

Aims

For paediatric and adolescent patients with growth potential, preservation of the physiological joint by transepiphyseal resection (TER) of the femur confers definite advantages over arthroplasty procedures. We hypothesized that the extent of the tumour and changes in its extent after neoadjuvant chemotherapy are essential factors in the selection of this procedure, and can be assessed with MRI. The oncological and functional outcomes of the procedure were reviewed to confirm its safety and efficacy.

Aims

We present a retrospective review of patients treated with extracorporeally irradiated allografts for primary and secondary bone tumours with the mid- and long-term survivorship and the functional and radiographic outcomes.

Aims

Few studies dealing with chondrosarcoma of the pelvis are currently available. Different data about the overall survival and prognostic factors have been published but without a detailed analysis of surgery-related complications. We aimed to analyse the outcome of a series of pelvic chondrosarcomas treated at a single institution, with particular attention to the prognostic factors. Based on a competing risk model, our objective was to identify risk factors for the development of complications.

Aims

The aims of this retrospective study were to report the feasibility of using 3D-printing technology for patients with a pelvic tumour who underwent reconstruction.

The purpose of this study was to assess whether the use of a joint-sparing technique such as curettage and grafting was successful in eradicating giant cell tumours of the proximal femur, or whether an alternative strategy was more appropriate.

Between 1974 and 2012, 24 patients with a giant cell tumour of the proximal femur were treated primarily at our hospital. Treatment was either joint sparing or joint replacing. Joint-sparing treatment was undertaken in ten patients by curettage with or without adjunctive bone graft. Joint replacement was by total hip replacement in nine patients and endoprosthetic replacement in five. All 11 patients who presented with a pathological fracture were treated by replacement.

Local recurrence occurred in five patients (21%): two were treated by hip replacement, three by curettage and none with an endoprosthesis. Of the ten patients treated initially by curettage, six had a successful outcome without local recurrence and required no further surgery. Three eventually needed a hip replacement for local recurrence and one an endoprosthetic replacement for mechanical failure. Thus 18 patients had the affected joint replaced and only six (25%) retained their native joint. Overall, 60% of patients without a pathological fracture who were treated with curettage had a successful outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:127–31.