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. 103-B, Issue 2 | Pages 398 - 404
1 Feb 2021
Christ AB Fujiwara T Yakoub MA Healey JH

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.

Methods

A total of 14 patients underwent primary or revision reconstruction of a large femoral defect with a short remaining proximal femur using an interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate for fixation after oncological distal femoral and diaphyseal resections. The implant was attached to a standard endoprosthetic reconstruction system. The implant was attached to a standard endoprosthetic reconstruction system. None of the femoral revisions were amenable to standard cemented or uncemented stem fixation. Patient and disease characteristics, surgical history, final ambulatory status, and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score were recorded. The percentage of proximal femur remaining was calculated from follow-up radiographs.