Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 107-B, Issue 2 | Pages 253 - 260
1 Feb 2025
Sambri A Campanacci DA Pala E Smolle MA Donati DM van de Sande MAJ Vyrva O Leithner A Jeys L Ruggieri P De Paolis M

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of reinfection in patients after two-stage revision of an infected megaprosthesis (MPR) implanted after resection of a bone tumour. Methods. A retrospective study was carried out of 186 patients from 16 bone sarcoma centres treated between January 2010 and December 2020. The median age at the time of tumour diagnosis was 26 years (IQR 17 to 33); 69 (37.1%) patients were female, and 117 (62.9%) were male. Results. A total of 186 patients with chronic MPR infections were included. Median follow-up was 68 months (IQR 31 to 105). The most represented sites of MPR were distal femur in 93 cases (50.0%) and proximal tibia in 53 cases (28.5%). Polymicrobial infections were seen in 34 cases (18.3%). The most frequent isolated pathogens were staphylococci. Difficult-to-treat (DTT) pathogens were isolated in 50 cases (26.9%). The estimated infection recurrence (IR) rate was 39.1% at five years and 50.0% at ten years. A higher IR rate was found in DTT PJI compared to non-DTT infections (p = 0.019). Polymicrobial infections also showed a higher rate of infection recurrence (p = 0.046). Conclusion. This study suggests that an infected MPR treated by two-stage revision and ultimately reimplantation with a MPR can be successful, but the surgeon must be aware of a high recurrence rate compared to those seen with infected conventional implants. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(2):253–260


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 3 | Pages 370 - 377
1 Mar 2018
Gilg MM Gaston CL Jeys L Abudu A Tillman RM Stevenson JD Grimer RJ Parry MC

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).