Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1463 - 1470
1 Nov 2016
Grammatopoulos G Alvand A Martin H Whitwell D Taylor A Gibbons CLMH

Objectives. A possible solution for the management of proximal femoral bone loss is a modular femoral endoprosthesis (EPR). Although the outcome of EPRs in tumour surgery has been well described, the outcome of their use in revision hip surgery has received less attention. The aim of this study was to describe the outcome of using EPR for non-neoplastic indications. Methods. A retrospective review of 79 patients who underwent 80 EPRs for non-neoplastic indications was performed, including the rates of complication and survival and the mean Oxford Hip Scores (OHS), at a mean of five years post-operatively. The mean age at the time of surgery was 69 years (28 to 93) and the mean number of previous operations on the hip was 2.4 (0 to 17). The most common indications for EPR implantation were periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 40), periprosthetic fracture (n = 12) and failed osteosynthesis of a proximal femoral fracture or complex trauma (n = 11). Results. Salvage was achieved in all patients. A total of 25 patients (25 EPRs, 31.6%) had a complication, the most common being infection (n = 9) and dislocation (n = 3). Further surgery was required for 18 EPRs (22%), nine of which were revision procedures. The five year survival of the EPR was 87% (95%CI: 76% to 98%). The mean OHS was 28 (4 to 48). Inferior survival and outcomes were seen in EPRs which were performed for the treatment of infection. However, the eradication of infection was achieved in 33 of the 40 (82.5%) which were undertaken for this indication. Conclusion. We recommend the continued use of proximal femoral EPRs for non-neoplastic indications, including PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1463–70


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 1_Supple_A | Pages 22 - 30
1 Jan 2018
Brown TS Salib CG Rose PS Sim FH Lewallen DG Abdel MP

Aims

Reconstruction of the acetabulum after resection of a periacetabular malignancy is technically challenging and many different techniques have been used with varying success. Our aim was to prepare a systematic review of the literature dealing with these techniques in order to clarify the management, the rate of complications and the outcomes.

Patients and Methods

A search of PubMed and MEDLINE was conducted for English language articles published between January 1990 and February 2017 with combinations of key search terms to identify studies dealing with periacetabular resection with reconstruction in patients with a malignancy. Studies in English that reported radiographic or clinical outcomes were included. Data collected from each study included: the number and type of reconstructions, the pathological diagnosis of the lesions, the mean age and follow-up, gender distribution, implant survivorship, complications, functional outcome, and mortality. The results from individual studies were combined for the general analysis, and then grouped according to the type of reconstruction.