Aims. Aseptic loosening is a major cause of failure in cemented endoprosthetic reconstructions. This paper presents the long-term outcomes of a custom-designed cross-pin fixation construct designed to minimize rotational stress and subsequent aseptic loosening in selected patients. The paper will also examine the long-term survivorship and modes of failure when using this technique. Patients and Methods. A review of 658 consecutive, prospectively collected cemented endoprosthetic reconstructions for oncological diagnoses at a single centre between 1980 and 2017 was performed. A total of 51 patients were identified with 56 endoprosthetic implants with cross-pin fixation, 21 of which were implanted following primary resection of tumour. Locations included distal femoral (n = 36), proximal femoral (n = 7), intercalary (n = 6), proximal humeral (n = 3), proximal tibial (n = 3), and distal humeral (n = 1). Results. The median follow-up was 132 months (interquartile range (IQR) 44 to 189). In all, 20 stems required revision: eight for infection, five for structural failure, five for aseptic loosening, and two for tumour progression. Mechanical survivorship at five, ten, and 15 years was 84%, 78%, and 78%, respectively. Mechanical failure rate varied by location, with no mechanical failures of proximal femoral constructs and distal femoral survivorship of 82%, 77%, and 77% at five, ten, and 15 years. The survivorship of primary constructs at five years was 74%, with no failure after 40 months, while the survivorship for revision constructs was 89%, 80%, and 80% at five, ten, and 15 years. . Conclusion. The rate of mechanical survivorship in our series is similar to those reported for other methods of reconstruction for short diaphyseal segments, such as compressive osseointegration. The mechanical failure rate differed by location, while there was no substantial difference in long-term survival between primary and revision reconstructions. Overall, custom cross-pin fixation is a viable option for endoprosthetic reconstruction of short metaphyseal segments with an acceptable rate of mechanical failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:724–731

Aims

We have evaluated the survivorship, outcomes, and failures of an interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate implant used to preserve the native hip joint and achieve proximal fixation when there is little residual femur during large endoprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur.

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.

Endoprosthetic reconstruction following resection of 31 tumours of the proximal femur in 30 patients was performed using a Wagner SL femoral revision stem. The mean follow-up was 25.6 months (0.6 to 130.0). Of the 28 patients with a metastasis, 27 died within a mean follow-up period of 18.1 months (0.6 to 56.3) after the operation, and the remaining patient was excluded from the study 44.4 months post-operatively when the stem was removed. The two patients with primary bone tumours were still alive at the latest follow-up of 81.0 and 130.0 months, respectively. One stem only was removed for suspected low-grade infection 44.4 months post-operatively. The worst-case survival rate with removal of the stem for any cause and/or loss to follow-up was 80.0% (95% confidence interval 44.9 to 100) at 130.0 months. The mean Karnofsky index increased from 44.2% (20% to 70%) pre-operatively to 59.7% (0% to 100%) post-operatively, and the mean Merle d’Aubigné score improved from 4.5 (0 to 15) to 12.0 (0 to 18). The mean post-operative Musculoskeletal Tumour Society score was 62.4% (3.3% to 100%). The Wagner SL femoral revision stem offers an alternative to special tumour prostheses for the treatment of primary and secondary tumours of the proximal femur. The mid-term results are very promising, but long-term experience is necessary

We reviewed 25 patients in whom a MUTARS megaprosthesis with a conical fluted stem had been implanted. There were three types of stem: a standard stem was used in 17 cases (three in the proximal femur, nine in the distal femur and five proximal tibia), a custom-made proximal femoral stem in four cases and a custom-made distal femoral stem in four cases. The mean age of the patients was 40.1 years (17 to 70) and the mean follow-up was for 2.5 years (0.9 to 7.4).

At follow-up two patients had died from their disease: one was alive with disease and 22 were disease-free. One of 23 prostheses had been removed for infection and another revised to a cemented stem. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 24.9 (12 to 30) and the mean Karnofsky index was 82% (60% to 100%).

There was no radiological evidence of loosening or subsidence. Stem stress shielding was seen in 11 patients and was marked in five of these.

There were five complications, rupture of the extensor mechanism of the knee after extra-articular resection in two patients, deep venous thrombosis in one, septic loosening in one, and dislocation of the hip in one.

The survival rate after seven years was 87% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83 to 91) for the patients and 95% (95% CI 91 to 99) for the megaprosthesis. A longer follow-up is needed to confirm these encouraging results.