Rotating-hinge knee prostheses are commonly used to reconstruct the distal femur after resection of a tumour, despite the projected long-term burden of reoperation due to complications. Few studies have examined the factors that influence their failure and none, to our knowledge, have used competing risk models to do so. The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors for failure of a rotating-hinge knee distal femoral arthroplasty using the Fine-Gray competing risk model. We retrospectively reviewed 209 consecutive patients who, between 1991 and 2016, had undergone resection of the distal femur for tumour and reconstruction using a rotating-hinge knee prosthesis. The study endpoint was failure of the prosthesis, defined as removal of the femoral component, the tibial component, or the bone-implant fixation; major revision (exchange of the femoral component, tibial component, or the bone-implant fixation); or amputation.Aims
Methods
We have investigated whether improvements in design have altered the outcome for patients undergoing endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia following resection of a tumour. Survival of the implant and ‘servicing’ procedures have been documented using a prospective database. A total of 194 patients underwent a proximal tibial replacement, with 95 having a fixed-hinge design and 99 a rotating-hinge with a hydroxyapatite collar; their median age was 21.5 years (10 to 74). At a mean follow-up of 14.7 years (5 to 29), 115 patients remain alive. The risk of revision for any reason in the fixed-hinge group was 32% at five years, 61% at ten years and 75% at 15 and 20 years, and in the rotating-hinge group 12% at five years, 25% at ten years and 30% at 15 years. Aseptic loosening was the most common reason for revision in the fixed-hinge knees, fracture of the implant in the early design of rotating hinges and infection in the current version. The risk of revision for aseptic loosening in the fixed-hinge knees was 46% at ten years. This was reduced to 3% in the rotating-hinge knee with a hydroxyapatite collar. The cemented, rotating hinge design currently offers the best chance of long-term survival of the prosthesis.
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.
