Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1633 - 1640
1 Oct 2021
Lex JR Evans S Parry MC Jeys L Stevenson JD

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 large diameter heads (> 32 mm) are recommended in all revision PFEPRs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1633–1640


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 10 | Pages 868 - 878
14 Oct 2024
Sekita T Asano N Kobayashi H Yonemoto T Kobayashi E Ishii T Kawai A Nakayama R

Aims

Surgical limb sparing for knee-bearing paediatric bone sarcoma is considered to have a clinically significant influence on postoperative function due to complications and leg-length discrepancies. However, researchers have not fully evaluated the long-term postoperative functional outcomes. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to elucidate the risk factors and long-term functional prognosis associated with paediatric limb-sparing surgery.

Methods

We reviewed 40 patients aged under 14 years who underwent limb-sparing surgery for knee bone sarcoma (15 cases in the proximal tibia and 25 in the distal femur) between January 2000 and December 2013, and were followed up for a minimum of five years. A total of 35 patients underwent reconstruction using artificial materials, and five underwent biological reconstruction. We evaluated the patients’ postoperative complications, survival rate of reconstruction material, and limb, limb function, and leg-length discrepancy at the final follow-up, as well as the risk factors for each.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 89-B, Issue 4 | Pages 521 - 526
1 Apr 2007
Myers GJC Abudu AT Carter SR Tillman RM Grimer RJ

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