Between 1997 and 2007, 68 consecutive patients underwent replacement of the proximal humerus for tumour using a fixed-fulcrum massive endoprosthesis. Their mean age was 46 years (7 to 87). Ten patients were lost to follow-up and 16 patients died. The 42 surviving patients were assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) Score and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) at a mean follow-up of five years and 11 months (one year to ten years and nine months). The mean MSTS score was 72.3% (53.3% to 100%) and the mean TESS was 77.2% (58.6% to 100%).

Four of 42 patients received a new constrained humeral liner to reduce the risk of dislocation. This subgroup had a mean MSTS score of 77.7% and a mean TESS of 80.0%. The dislocation rate for the original prosthesis was 25.9; none of the patients with the new liner had a dislocation at a mean of 14.5 months (12 to 18).

Endoprosthetic replacement for tumours of the proximal humerus using this prosthesis is a reliable operation yielding good results without the documented problems of unconstrained prostheses. The performance of this prosthesis is expected to improve further with a new constrained humeral liner, which reduces the risk of dislocation.

We have reviewed five adult patients treated with endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal radius following resection of non-traumatic lesions. The patients had a mean age of 33.4 years (20 to 60) at the time of surgery and the mean follow-up was 7.6 years (0.8 to 16).

Following surgery, all elbows were clinically stable and there was 100% survivorship of the prosthesis. Evaluation of function was assessed clinically and by the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, achieving a mean of 86% (70 to 100).

Results at medium-term follow-up are encouraging with regards to elbow stability, implant survivorship and functional outcome.

In skeletally immature patients, resection of bone tumours and reconstruction of the lower limb often results in leg-length discrepancy. The Stanmore non-invasive extendible endoprosthesis, which uses electromagnetic induction, allows post-operative lengthening without anaesthesia. Between 2002 and 2009, 55 children with a mean age of 11.4 years (5 to 16) underwent reconstruction with this prosthesis; ten patients (18.2%) died of disseminated disease and one child underwent amputation due to infection. We reviewed 44 patients after a mean follow-up of 41.2 months (22 to 104). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 24.7 (8 to 30) and the Toronto Extremity Salvage score was 92.3% (55.2% to 99.0%). There was no local recurrence of tumour. Complications developed in 16 patients (29.1%) and ten (18.2%) underwent revision.

The mean length gained per patient was 38.6 mm (3.5 to 161.5), requiring a mean of 11.3 extensions (1 to 40), and ten component exchanges were performed in nine patients (16.4%) after attaining the maximum lengthening capacity of the implant. There were 11 patients (20%) who were skeletally mature at follow-up, ten of whom had equal leg lengths and nine had a full range of movement of the hip and knee.

This is the largest reported series using non-invasive extendible endoprostheses after excision of primary bone tumours in skeletally immature patients. The technique produces a good functional outcome, with prevention of limb-length discrepancy at skeletal maturity.

We retrospectively studied 14 patients with proximal and diaphyseal tumours and disappearing bone (Gorham’s) disease of the humerus treated with wide resection and reconstruction using an allograft-resurfacing composite (ARC). There were ten women and four men, with a mean age of 35 years (8 to 69). At a mean follow-up of 25 months (10 to 89), two patients had a fracture of the allograft. In one of these it was revised with a similar ARC and in the other with an intercalary prosthesis. A further patient had an infection and a fracture of the allograft that was revised with a megaprosthesis. In all patients with an ARC, healing of the ARC-host bone interface was observed. One patient had failure of the locking mechanism of the total elbow replacement. The mean post-operative Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score for the upper extremity was 77% (46.7% to 86.7%), which represents good and excellent results; one patient had a poor result (46.7%).

In the short term ARC effectively relieves pain and restores shoulder function in patients with wide resection of the proximal humerus. Fracture and infection remain significant complications.

The best method of reconstruction after resection of malignant tumours of the tibial diaphysis is unknown. In the absence of any long-term studies analysing the results of intercalary endoprosthetic replacement, we present a retrospective review of 18 patients who underwent limb salvage using a tibial diaphyseal endoprosthetic replacement following excision of a malignant bone tumour. There were ten men and eight women with a mean age of 42.5 years (16 to 76). Mean follow-up was 58.5 months (20 to 141) for all patients and 69.3 months (20 to 141) for the 12 patients still alive. Cumulative patient survival was 59% (95% confidence interval (CI) 32 to 84) at five years. Implant survival was 63% (95% CI 35 to 90) at ten years. Four patients required revision to a proximal tibial replacement at a mean follow-up of 29 months (10 to 54). Complications included metastases in five patients, aseptic loosening in four, peri-prosthetic fracture in two, infection in one and local recurrence in one. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score and the mean Toronto Extremity Salvage Score were 23 (17 to 28) and 74% (53 to 91), respectively.

Although rates of complication and revision were high, custom-made tibial diaphyseal replacement following resection of malignant bone tumours enables early return to function and provides an attractive alternative to other surgical options, without apparent compromise of patient survival.

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.