Survival of current production tumor endoprostheses: complications, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis

Survivorship, complications, and outcomes following distal femoral replacement for neoplastic indications

Background

Distal femoral replacements (DFRs) are excellent treatment options for limb salvage procedures in patients who have bone loss secondary to neoplasm. Multiple studies report adequate survivorship and complication rates following DFR implantation, primarily for non-neoplastic indications. However, current literature regarding neoplasm-specific reports is often limited by sample size, survivorship, and patient reported outcome measurements. Therefore, we sought to examine patients who received a DFR for a neoplastic indication at multiple tertiary academic centers. Specific outcomes analyzed included: (1) revision-free survival, (2) medical/surgical complications, and (3) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR).

Methods

All patients who underwent a DFR for a neoplastic indication were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 29 knees were included for various neoplastic indications. Outcomes of interest included: post-operative thromboses, pneumonia, dislocations, periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), aseptic loosening, osteolysis, emergency department visits, inpatient readmissions, and revision surgeries. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) collected included: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR).

Results

Revision-free survivorship was 72.4 % at 23 months with radiographic follow-up. PJI was the most common post-operative complication, affecting 3 knees (10.3 %). The mean number of emergency department visits and inpatient readmissions averaged less than one per patient (0.63 and 0.41, respectively). KOOS JR scores improved markedly among from baseline to final follow-up (44.1-57.8).

Conclusion

The use of DFR led to satisfactory medium-term clinical outcomes with an acceptable complication rate for this challenging group of patients. The marked improvement in patient satisfaction for this patient population gives a promising outlook for patients who will undergo this procedure in the future and can guide patient-provider regarding surgical expectations.

What Are the Complications, Function, and Survival of Tumor-devitalized Autografts Used in Patients With Limb-sparing Surgery for Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors? A Japanese Musculoskeletal Oncology Group Multi-institutional Study

BACKGROUND

Tumor-devitalized autografts treated with deep freezing, pasteurization, and irradiation are biological reconstruction methods after tumor excision for aggressive or malignant bone or soft tissue tumors that involve a major long bone. Tumor-devitalized autografts do not require a bone bank, they carry no risk of viral or bacterial disease transmission, they are associated with a smaller immunologic response, and they have a better shape and size match to the site in which they are implanted. However, they are associated with disadvantages as well; it is not possible to assess margins and tumor necrosis, the devitalized bone is not normal and has limited healing potential, and the biomechanical strength is decreased owing to processing and tumor-related bone loss. Because this technique is not used in many countries, there are few reports on the results of this procedure such as complications, graft survival, and limb function.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What was the rate of complications such as fracture, nonunion, infection, or recurrence in a tumor-devitalized autograft treated with deep freezing, pasteurization, and irradiation, and what factors were associated with the complication? (2) What were the 5-year and 10-year grafted bone survival (free from graft bone removal) of the three methods used to devitalize a tumor-containing autograft, and what factors were associated with grafted bone survival? (3) What was the proportion of patients with union of the tumor-devitalized autograft and what factors were associated with union of the graft-host bone junction? (4) What was the limb function after the tumor-devitalized autograft, and what factors were related to favorable limb function?

METHODS

This was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study that included data from 26 tertiary sarcoma centers affiliated with the Japanese Musculoskeletal Oncology Group. From January 1993 to December 2018, 494 patients with benign or malignant tumors of the long bones were treated with tumor-devitalized autografts (using deep freezing, pasteurization, or irradiation techniques). Patients who were treated with intercalary or composite (an osteoarticular autograft with a total joint arthroplasty) tumor-devitalized autografts and followed for at least 2 years were considered eligible for inclusion. Accordingly, 7% (37 of 494) of the patients were excluded because they died within 2 years; in 19% (96), an osteoarticular graft was used, and another 10% (51) were lost to follow-up or had incomplete datasets. We did not collect information on those who died or were lost to follow-up. Considering this, 63% of the patients (310 of 494) were included in the analysis. The median follow-up was 92 months (range 24 to 348 months), the median age was 27 years (range 4 to 84), and 48% (148 of 310) were female; freezing was performed for 47% (147) of patients, pasteurization for 29% (89), and irradiation for 24% (74). The primary endpoints of this study were the cumulative incidence rate of complications and the cumulative survival of grafted bone, assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. We used the classification of complications and graft failures proposed by the International Society of Limb Salvage. Factors relating to complications and grafted autograft removal were analyzed. The secondary endpoints were the proportion of bony union and better limb function, evaluated by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score. Factors relating to bony union and limb function were also analyzed. Data were investigated in each center by a record review and transferred to Kanazawa University.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence rate of any complication was 42% at 5 years and 51% at 10 years. The most frequent complications were nonunion in 36 patients and infection in 34 patients. Long resection (≥ 15 cm) was associated with an increased risk of any complication based on the multivariate analyses (RR 1.8 [95% CI 1.3 to 2.5]; p < 0.01). There was no difference in the rate of complications among the three devitalizing methods. The cumulative graft survival rates were 87% at 5 years and 81% at 10 years. After controlling for potential confounding variables including sex, resection length, reconstruction type, procedure type, and chemotherapy, we found that long resection (≥ 15 cm) and composite reconstruction were associated with an increased risk of grafted autograft removal (RR 2.5 [95% CI 1.4 to 4.5]; p < 0.01 and RR 2.3 [95% CI 1.3 to 4.1]; p < 0.01). The pedicle freezing procedure showed better graft survival than the extracorporeal devitalizing procedures (94% versus 85% in 5 years; RR 3.1 [95% CI 1.1 to 9.0]; p = 0.03). No difference was observed in graft survival among the three devitalizing methods. Further, 78% (156 of 200 patients) of patients in the intercalary group and 87% (39 of 45 patients) of those in the composite group achieved primary union within 2 years. Male sex and the use of nonvascularized grafts were associated with an increased risk of nonunion (RR 2.8 [95% CI 1.3 to 6.1]; p < 0.01 and 0.28 [95% CI 0.1 to 1.0]; p = 0.04, respectively) in the intercalary group after controlling for confounding variables, including sex, site, chemotherapy, resection length, graft type, operation time, and fixation type. The median Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 83% (range 12% to 100%). After controlling for confounding variables including age, site, resection length, event occurrence, and graft removal, age younger than 40 years (RR 2.0 [95% CI 1.1 to 3.7]; p = 0.03), tibia (RR 6.9 [95% CI 2.7 to 17.5]; p < 0.01), femur (RR 4.8 [95% CI 1.9 to 11.7]; p < 0.01), no event (RR 2.2 [95% CI 1.1 to 4.5]; p = 0.03), and no graft removal (RR 2.9 [95% CI 1.2 to 7.3]; p = 0.03) were associated with an increased limb function. The composite graft was associated with decreased limb function (RR 0.4 [95% CI 0.2 to 0.7]; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This multicenter study revealed that frozen, irradiated, and pasteurized tumor-bearing autografts had similar rates of complications and graft survival and all resulted in similar limb function. The recurrence rate was 10%; however, no tumor recurred with the devitalized autograft. The pedicle freezing procedure reduces the osteotomy site, which may contribute to better graft survival. Furthermore, tumor-devitalized autografts had reasonable survival and favorable limb function, which are comparable to findings reported for bone allografts. Overall, tumor-devitalized autografts are a useful option for biological reconstruction and are suitable for osteoblastic tumors or osteolytic tumors without severe loss of mechanical bone strength. Tumor-devitalized autografts could be considered when obtaining allografts is difficult and when a patient is unwilling to have a tumor prosthesis and allograft for various reasons such as cost or socioreligious reasons.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

What Factors Are Associated With Stem Breakage in Distal Femoral Endoprosthetic Replacements Undertaken for Primary Bone Tumors?

BACKGROUND

The advantages of distal femoral replacement prostheses for reconstructions after tumors are well known; one such implant, the Global Modular Replacement System (GMRS), has been widely used since 2003. Although implant breakage has been reported, the frequency of this event has varied across different studies.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What percentage of patients who underwent distal femur resection and replacement using the GMRS for primary bone tumors at one center experienced stem breakage? (2) At what timepoints did these breakages occur, and what factors were common among the stems that broke?

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent distal femur resection and replacement using the GMRS for a diagnosis of primary bone sarcoma by the Queensland Bone and Soft-tissue Tumor service from 2003 to 2020 who had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Standard follow-up for primary bone sarcoma involves radiographic imaging of the femur at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively and yearly thereafter. From a chart review, we identified patients with femoral stem breakage. Patient and implant details were recorded and analyzed. A total of 116 patients had undergone a distal femoral replacement with the GMRS prosthesis for primary bone sarcoma; however, 6.9% (eight of 116 patients) died before completing the 2-year follow-up period and were excluded. Of the remaining 108 patients, 15% (16 patients) had died at the time of this review; however, given that they completed the 2-year follow-up period and did not experience stem breakage, they were included. Furthermore, 15% (16 patients) were considered lost to follow-up and excluded because they have not been seen in the past 5 years but were not known to have died or experienced stem breakage. This left 92 patients for analysis.

RESULTS

Stem breakages were identified in 5.4% (five of 92) of patients. All stem breakages occurred in stem diameters 11 mm or less with a porous body construct; the percentage of patients with breakage in this group was 16% (five of 31). All patients with stem fracture demonstrated minimal ongrowth to the porous coated body. The median time to stem fracture was 10 years (range 2 to 12 years); however, two of the five stems broke within 3 years.

CONCLUSION

We recommend the use of a larger-diameter GMRS cemented stem (> 11 mm), and either the line-to-line cementing method or an uncemented stem from an alternative company should be considered in order to achieve this larger stem in smaller canals. If a stem less than 12 mm in diameter must be used or there is evidence of minimal ongrowth, then close follow-up and prompt investigation of new symptoms should occur.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Effect of carbon-fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone on stress distribution in a redesigned tumor-type knee prosthesis: a finite element analysis

Background: Surgery for bone tumors around the knee often involves extensive resection, making the subsequent prosthetic reconstruction challenging. While carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CF-PEEK) has been widely used in orthopedic implants, its application in tumor-type prosthesis is limited. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of using 30wt% and 60wt% carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CF30-PEEK and CF60-PEEK) as materials for a redesigned tumor-type knee prosthesis through numerical analysis. Methods: A knee joint model based on CT data was created, and the resection and prosthetic reconstruction were simulated. Three finite element models of the prostheses, representing the initial and updated designs with CoCrMo and CFR-PEEK components, were constructed. Loading conditions during standing and squatting were simulated with forces of 700 N and 2800 N, respectively. Finite element analysis was used to analyze the von Mises stress and stability of all components for each prosthesis type. Results: After improvements in both material and design, the new Type 3 prosthesis showed significantly lower overall stress with stress being evenly distributed. Compared with the initial design, the maximum von Mises stress in Type 3 was reduced by 53.9% during standing and 74.2% during squatting. In the standing position, the maximum stress in the CF30-PEEK femoral component decreased by 57.3% compared with the initial design which was composed of CoCrMo, while the stress in the CF60-PEEK cardan shaft remained consistent. In the squatting position, the maximum stress in the femoral component decreased by 81.9%, and the stress in the cardan shaft decreased by 46.5%. Conclusion: The incorporation of CF30-PEEK effectively transmits forces and reduces stress concentration on the femoral component, while CF60-PEEK in the redesigned cardan shaft significantly reduces stress while maintaining stiffness. The redesigned prosthesis effectively conducts loading force and demonstrates favorable biomechanical characteristics, indicating the promising potential of utilizing CF30-PEEK and CF60-PEEK materials for tumor-type knee prostheses. The findings of this study could provide novel insights for the design and development of tumor-type knee prostheses.

Incidence and risk of surgical site infection/periprosthetic joint infection in tumor endoprosthesis-data from the nationwide bone tumor registry in Japan

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI)/periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication in limb salvage surgery with endoprosthesis reconstruction for malignant bone tumors. The main bottleneck for data collection and analysis for the status of SSI/PJI in tumor endoprosthesis is the low absolute case numbers of this rare cancer. The accumulation of many cases is possible by administrating nationwide registry data.

METHODS

The data on malignant bone tumor resection with tumor endoprosthesis reconstruction were extracted from the Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor Registry in Japan. The primary endpoint was defined as the need for additional surgical intervention for infection control. The incidence of postoperative infection and its risk factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1342 cases were included. The incidence of SSI/PJI was 8.2%. The incidence of SSI/PJI in the proximal femur, distal femur, proximal tibia, and pelvis were 4.9%, 7.4%, 12.6%, and 41.2%, respectively. Location in the pelvis or proximal tibia, tumor grade, indication of myocutaneous flaps, and delayed wound healing proved to be independent risks for SSI/PJI, whereas age, sex, previous surgery, tumor size, surgical margin, application of chemotherapy and radiotherapy were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence was equal to those in previous studies. The result reconfirmed the high incidence of SSI/PJI in pelvis and proximal tibia cases and cases with delayed wound healing. Novel risk factors such as tumor grade and application of myocutaneous flaps were marked. The administration of nationwide registry data was informative for the analysis of SSI/PJI in tumor endoprosthesis.

Aseptic loosening of tumor prostheses in distal femur after revision surgery: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Tumor prostheses of the distal femur after revision surgery is associated with high rates of aseptic loosening, which has introduced great challenges to the survival of patients, but only a few studies have evaluated their X-ray imaging. The purpose of this study was to analyze the risk factors for recurrence of aseptic loosening and make recommendations to reduce the incidence of aseptic loosening after revision surgery of tumor prostheses in the distal femur.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis was performed on 23 patients who had revision surgery for distal femur prostheses due to aseptic loosening between June 2002 and June 2021. They were divided into two groups based on the condition of the prostheses after revision surgery: loosening group (9 patients) and control group (14 patients). Following the initial replacement, the length and diameter of the prosthetic intramedullary stem were measured through the standard full-length anteroposterior X-ray imaging of both lower limbs. The osteotomy length, femoral length and diameter, femoral intramedullary stem diameter, hip-knee-ankle angle (HKAA), mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (mLDFA), mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA), and so on were measured as well. Following that, statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Patients in the loosening group had statistically significant differences in the ratio of prostheses length to femur length (71.89 ± 6.62) and the ratio of intramedullary stem diameter to femoral diameter (25.50 ± 6.90) (P < 0.05), when compared to the control group. The HKAA (175.58 ± 2.78), mLDFA (94.42 ± 2.57), and the deviation angle between the lower limb alignment and the tibial prostheses force line (2.23 ± 1.09) in the loosening group were significantly different from those in the control group (P < 0.05) on postoperative radiographs of the entire length of the lower limbs. The lowest score in intramedullary manubrium I indicated less osteolysis, while the highest score in intramedullary manubrium III indicated the most serious osteolysis, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the use of longer and thicker intramedullary stems can effectively decrease the occurrence of aseptic loosening. Additionally, it is important to avoid using the original prostheses and reconstruct the standard line of lower limb force to further reduce the incidence of aseptic loosening. It is crucial to closely monitor the distal segment of the intramedullary stem for osteolysis after surgery.

Iodine-supported implants in prevention and treatment of surgical site infections for compromised hosts: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication following orthopedic implantation. We developed an iodine coating for titanium implants to reduce implant-related infections and conducted a prospective clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and potential drawbacks of iodine-supported implants.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 2008 and July 2017, 653 patients (377 male and 27 female patients; mean age, 48.6) with postoperative infection or a compromised status were treated using iodine-loaded titanium implants. The mean follow-up period was 41.7 months. In 477 patients, iodine-supported implants were used to prevent infection and in 176 patients, to treat active infection (one-stage surgery, 89 patients; two-stage surgery, 87 patients). In the limbs and pelvis, the primary diagnoses included the following: 161 tumors, 92 deformities/shortening, 47 pseudarthrosis, 42 fractures, 32 infected TKA, 25 osteoarthritis, 21 pyogenic arthritis, 20 infected THA, and 6 osteomyelitis. In the spinal cases, there were 136 cases of tumors, 36 cases of pyogenic spondylitis, and 35 cases of degeneration. Five modes of implant failure were identified and classified as follows: soft tissue failure (type 1), aseptic loosening (type 2), structural failure (type 3), infection (type 4), and tumor progression (type 5).

RESULTS

The overall failure rate in our series was 26.3% (172/653). There were 101 mechanical failures, including 22 type 1, 20 type 2, and 59 type 3 failures. Non-mechanical causes accounted for 71 failures, including 45 type 4 and 26 type 5 failures. The overall incidence of infections was 6.8%. The mean time to the onset of infection after implantation was 9.1 months. The overall infection rate was 3.7% in the prevention cases and 15.3% in the treatment cases. There was no difference between one-stage replacement (14.6%) and two-stage replacement (16.0%). There were 11 cases of treatment for SSI of spine surgery, and the re-infection rate was 0% using iodine-coated instruments.

CONCLUSIONS

The five modes of failure of the iodine-supported implant were satisfactory compared with previous reports. In particular, because the infection rate of iodine-coated implants used for compromised hosts is low compared with other methods, postoperative infection is more easily controlled. It can be considered highly effective for spinal infections that require one-stage revision surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

Trial registration Prospective, Observation study.

Clinical outcomes of cemented distal femur replacements with all-polyethylene tibial components for oncologic indications

BACKGROUND

Endoprosthetic distal femoral replacement (DFR) is a well-established salvage procedure following resection of malignant tumors within the distal femur. Use of an all-polyethylene tibial (APT) component is cost-effective and avoids failure due to locking-mechanism issues and backside wear, but limits modularity and the option for late liner exchange. Due to a paucity of literature we sought to answer three questions: (1) What are the most common modes of implant failure for patients undergoing cemented DFR with APT for oncologic indications? (2) What is the survivorship, rate of all-cause reoperation, and rate of revision for aseptic loosening of these implants? And (3) Is there a difference in implant survivorship or patient demographics between cemented DFRs with APT performed as a primary reconstruction vs those performed as a revision procedure?

AIM

To assess outcomes of cemented DFRs with APT components used for oncologic indications.

METHODS

After Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent DFR between December 2000 to September 2020 was performed using a single-institutional database. Inclusion criteria consisted of all patients who underwent DFR with a GMRS^® (Global Modular Replacement System, Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, United States) cemented distal femoral endoprosthesis and APT component for an oncologic indication. Patients undergoing DFR for non-oncologic indications and patients with metal-backed tibial components were excluded. Implant failure was recorded using Henderson's classification and survivorship was reported using a competing risks analysis.

RESULTS

55 DFRs (55 patients) with an average age of 50.9 ± 20.7 years and average body mass index of 29.7 ± 8.3 kg/m² were followed for 38.8 ± 54.9 mo (range 0.2-208.4). Of these, 60.0% were female and 52.7% were white. The majority of DFRs with APT in this cohort were indicated for oncologic diagnoses of osteogenic sarcoma (n = 22, 40.0%), giant cell tumor (n = 9, 16.4%), and metastatic carcinoma (n = 8, 14.6%). DFR with APT implantation was performed as a primary procedure in 29 patients (52.7%) and a revision procedure in 26 patients (47.3%). Overall, twenty patients (36.4%) experienced a postoperative complication requiring reoperation. The primary modes of implant failure included Henderson Type 1 (soft tissue failure, n = 6, 10.9%), Type 2 (aseptic loosening, n = 5, 9.1%), and Type 4 (infection, n = 6, 10.9%). There were no significant differences in patient demographics or rates of postoperative complications between the primary procedure and revision procedure subgroups. In total, 12 patients (21.8%) required a revision while 20 patients (36.4%) required a reoperation, resulting in three-year cumulative incidences of 24.0% (95%CI 9.9%-41.4%) and 47.2% (95%CI 27.5%-64.5%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates modest short-term survivorship following cemented DFR with APT components for oncologic indications. Soft tissue failure and endoprosthetic infection were the most common postoperative complications in our cohort.

What Is the Long-term Survivorship of Primary and Revision Cemented Distal Femoral Replacements for Limb Salvage of Patients With Sarcoma?

BACKGROUND

Cemented endoprosthetic reconstruction after resection of primary bone sarcomas has been in common use for decades. Although multiple studies have reported the survivorship of primary endoprostheses, implant survivorship after revision surgery is less well established. Given that earlier advances in systemic therapy improved survival of patients with sarcoma, the usage of revision endoprostheses can be expected to increase and, as such, understanding revision implant survivorship will help to inform patient and surgeon expectations. Additionally, as new implants are developed that allow alternative reconstruction options, a normative dataset establishing accurate expectations for revision cemented endoprostheses is a critical benchmark by which to measure progress.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the implant survivorship free of all-cause revision for primary and revision cemented distal femoral replacements (DFRs) used in the treatment of malignant or benign tumors? (2) What are the most common indications for revision of primary and revision DFRs in an oncology population with mean follow-up of more than 10 years? (3) How does the indication for revision of a primary DFR affect the subsequent risk for and type of revision DFR complication? (4) What patient, tumor, or implant characteristics are associated with improved survivorship free of revision in cemented DFRs used in patients treated initially for primary malignant or benign tumors?

METHODS

This was a retrospective, comparative study using our institution's longitudinally-maintained database of 806 cemented endoprostheses starting in 1980 and assessed through December 31, 2018. In all, 365 DFRs were inserted during this time, but 14% (51 of 365) were placed for nonprimary bone tumors and 1% (5 of 365) were cementless reconstructions, leaving 309 cemented DFRs. Seventy-one percent (218 of 309) were primary implants and 29 percent (91 of 309) were revision implants (used to revise a prior DFR in all patients). During this time period, our strong bias was to use cemented stems and, thus, nearly all of our patients had cemented stems. Six percent (13 of 218) of primary DFRs were implanted more than 2 years before the study end; however, they lacked 2 years of follow-up data and, thus, were considered lost to follow-up, leaving 205 implants in the primary DFR analysis group. Only the first revision after primary DFR revision surgery was included in the revision cohort analysis. Thirty-two percent (29 of 91) of revision DFRs were second or more revision patients and were excluded, leaving 62 implants in the revision analysis group. Most patients in both groups were men (57% [117 of 205] for primary and 71% [44 of 62] for revision) who had been diagnosed with osteosarcoma (75% [153 of 205] and 73% [45 of 62] for primary and revision, respectively). The primary cohort had mean age of 26 ± 16 years with a mean follow-up of 136 ± 122 months, and the revision cohort had mean age of 31 ± 13 years (p = 0.02) with 141 ± 101 months of follow-up. Study endpoints included all-cause implant revision and cause-specific revision for soft tissue complications, aseptic loosening, structural complications (defined as periprosthetic or implant fracture), infection, or tumor progression. Planned surgery for implant lengthening procedures was excluded. Implant survivorship free from all-cause revision was calculated using a competing risk (cumulative incidence) estimator with death as a competing risk. A log-rank test using chi-square analysis was used to evaluate the differences in implant survivorship between primary DFRs and first revisions. The cause-specific incidences of implant revision were tabulated for primary and revision DFRs. Cox regression analysis investigated the odds of subsequent all-cause revision surgery for revision cemented DFRs based on the primary implant complication. A binary logistic regression analysis using age, gender, indication for revision, tumor type, infection, perioperative chemotherapy, and radiation was performed to identify factors associated with a second DFR reoperation. Relative effect sizes are reported as ORs.

RESULTS

The revision DFR cohort had a shorter mean survival to all-cause revision than the primary cohort (mean 10 years [95% CI 7 to 12] versus 18 years [95% CI 15 to 20]; p < 0.001). The most common complications necessitating revision for revision implants were periprosthetic or implant fracture in 37% (23 of 62) and aseptic loosening in 15% (9 of 62), and the type of primary implant complication was not associated with risk of subsequent all-cause revision surgery for revision implants. Stem diameter less than 15 mm was associated with repeat all-cause revision in cemented revision DFRs after controlling for resection length, stem length, implant fabrication (custom or modular), and presence of a porous collar (OR 4 [95% CI 1 to 17]; p = 0.03). No other parameters that we explored, including patient age, gender, chemoradiation history, or primary tumor diagnosis, were associated with repeat revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

Understanding modifiable factors that can improve revision DFR survival is critical to achieving long-term limb salvage for patients with tumors around the knee. Our data suggest that utilizing implants with the largest possible stems-or at a minimum increasing the stem size over the primary implant-is important to revision cemented DFR survivorship and is an important part of our revision practice. Improving revision implants' resistance to aseptic loosening through designs that resist torsion (a common mode of cemented fixation failure)-such as with the use of custom cross-pin fabrication-may be one method to improve survivorship. Another will be improved implant metallurgy that is resistant to fatigue fracture. Next steps may include understanding the optimal ratio of femoral diaphyseal width to implant diameter in patients where anatomic constraints preclude the insertion of cemented stems 15 mm or more in diameter.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

The history of resection prosthesis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this historical review is to highlight the progression and development of prosthetic reconstruction with a focus on the modular distal femur with hinged total knee arthroplasty.

METHOD

Scientific literature was searched for descriptions of endoprosthetic reconstruction of the extremities to provide a thorough overview of the subject, focusing the research on the evolution of limb salvage of the distal femur.

RESULTS

After the first works of Gluck and Giordano, with ivory and metal and the pioneer shoulder prosthesis by Pean in the late 1890s, a great advancement was brought by reconstructions performed for injured soldiers of the Great War. By the 1940s, replacement of all the main joints had been attempted, and documented.

DISCUSSION

Walldius in the 1950s developed a fully constrained hinge knee, offering for the first time a consistent and replicable method of substituting the joint. In 1953, Shiers' prosthesis allowed for good flexion and extension. Stanmore and GUEPAR group prosthesis in the 1960s were the first to have a different right and left side model. The rotating hinge was developed in 1978 by Walker, with the innovative concept of six degrees of freedom. Between 1979 and 1982, Kotz developed the modular segmental replacement that, added to a fixed hinge knee, permitted the revolutionary creation of the modern distal femur replacement.

CONCLUSION

The study of the materials and mechanical solutions that was brought to the modern distal femur resection prosthesis is a good example of a virtuous multidisciplinary teamwork between orthopaedic surgeons, anatomists, and biomechanical engineers.

Reconstruction of massive bone defects after femoral tumor resection using two new-designed 3D-printed intercalary prostheses: a clinical analytic study with the cooperative utilization of multiple technologies

BACKGROUND

To reconstruct massive bone defects of the femoral diaphysis and proximal end with limited bilateral cortical bone after joint-preserving musculoskeletal tumor resections, two novel 3D-printed customized intercalary femoral prostheses were applied.

METHODS

A series of nine patients with malignancies who received these novel 3D-printed prostheses were retrospectively studied between July 2018 and November 2021. The proximal and diaphyseal femur was divided into three regions of interest (ROIs) according to anatomic landmarks, and anatomic measurements were conducted on 50 computed tomography images showing normal femurs. Based on the individual implant-involved ROIs, osteotomy level, and anatomical and biomechanical features, two alternative 3D-printed prostheses were designed. In each patient, Hounsfield Unit (HU) value thresholding and finite element analysis were conducted to identify the bone trabecula and calcar femorale and to determine the stress distribution, respectively. We described the characteristics of each prosthesis and surgical procedure and recorded the intraoperative data. All patients underwent regular postoperative follow-up, in which the clinical, functional and radiographical outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

With the ROI division and radiographic measurements, insufficient bilateral cortical bones for anchoring the traditional stem were verified in the normal proximal femur. Therefore, two 3D-printed intercalary endoprostheses, a Type A prosthesis with a proximal curved stem and a Type B prosthesis with a proximal anchorage-slot and corresponding locking screws, were designed. Based on HU value thresholding and finite element analysis, the 3D-printed proximal stems in all prostheses maximally preserved the trabecular bone and calcar femorale and optimized the biomechanical distribution, as did the proximal screws. With the 3D-printed osteotomy guide plates and reaming guide plates, all patients underwent the operation uneventfully with a satisfactory duration (325.00 ± 62.60 min) and bleeding volume (922.22 ± 222.36 ml). In the follow-up, Harris Hip and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores were ameliorated after surgery (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively), reliable bone ingrowth was observed, and no major complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Two novel 3D-printed femoral intercalary prostheses, which achieved acceptable overall postoperative outcomes, were used as appropriate alternatives for oncologic patients with massive bone defects and limited residual bone and increased the opportunities for joint-preserving tumor resection. Several scientific methodologies utilized in this study may promote the clinical design proposals of 3D-printed implants.

The Use of Proximal Femur Replacement for the Management of Oncologic Lesions in the Proximal Femur: A Review

With improved chemotherapeutic treatment, patients with primary or metastatic bone tumor have improved prognoses and longer life expectancies; therefore, durable limb-salvage constructs are critical. For tumors of the proximal femur, endoprosthetic replacement is an option for treatment in primary and metastatic disease, with the goals being tumor and pain control, earlier mobilization, shorter recovery period, and, in primary tumors, cure. This study provides a summary of current concepts in the treatment of oncologic lesions in the proximal femur with endoprostheses. Discussion of the inherent complications of these constructs is presented as well as the risks and treatment of reconstruction failure.

Salvage of limb salvage in oncological reconstructions of the lower limb with megaprosthesis: how much to push the boundaries?

INTRODUCTION

Megaprosthesis represent the most commonly used limb salvage method after musculoskeletal tumor resections. Nevertheless, they are burdened by high complication rate, requiring several surgical revisions and eventually limb amputation. The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of rescuing the limb with subsequent revisions on complication rates (a), incidence of amputations (b), and whether complications reduce functional outcome after the first surgical revision (c).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 444 lower limb megaprosthesis implanted for primary musculoskeletal tumors or metastatic lesions, from February 2000 to November 2017. 59 patients received at least one revision megaprosthesis surgery. MSTS score was used to assess final functional results. Complication-revision-amputation free survival rates were calculated both at 5 and 10 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

Complication free survival, revision free survival and amputation free survival at 10 years were 47% and 53%, 61% and 67%, 90% and 86% among all 444 patients and the group of 59 revised patients, respectively. The incidence of further complications after the first complication was 26% in the group treated with no subsequent revision surgeries and 51% in the group with at least one revision surgery. We found a trend of inverse linear relationship between the number of complications needing subsequent revision surgeries and the final MSTS.

CONCLUSION

The number of further revision surgeries after limb salvage with megaprosthesis increases the incidence of complications. Repeated surgical revisions, in particular after infection, increase the amputation rate. The most frequent causes of failure were structural failures and infections. MSTS score was superior for patients undergoing limb salvage than amputees. However, MSTS progressively decreased with multiple revisions becoming inferior to the functional score of an amputated patient.

Reconstruction with Unconventional Endoprostheses after Resection of Primary Distal Femoral Bone Tumors: Implant Survival and Functional Outcomes

Objective  To evaluate the survival time, the failure rate and its causes, and the functional results of cemented endoprostheses, with a polyethylene body, used after resection of primary bone tumors of the distal femur. Methods  A retrospective study including 93 primary and 77 review procedures performed between 1987 and 2014. Survival was obtained by the Kaplan Meyer analysis, and the risk factors for implant failure were assessed through the Cox proportional risk model. The causes of endoprosthesis failure were classified according to Henderson et al. into five types: soft-tissue failure, aseptic loosening, structural fracture, infection, and tumor recurrence. The functional evaluation was performed using the functional classification system of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) of bone sarcomas of the lower extremity, Brazilian version (MSTS-BR). Results  Osteosarcoma was the most common diagnosis; 64.5% of the patients were younger than 20 years of age; the mean follow-up was of 124.3 months. The failure rate of the primary implant was of 54.8%, and the mean survival was of 123 months. The estimated survival of the primary implant was of 63.6%, 43.5%, 24.1%, and 14.5% in 5, 10, 15, and 20 years respectively. The most common cause of failure was type 2 (37.3%). Age ≤ 26 years and right side were risk factors for failure. The mean MSTS-BR score was of 20.7 (range: 14 to 27). Conclusion The results obtained for the failure rate and survival of the implant are in accordance with those of the literature, so the procedure herein studied is adequate and yields satisfactory functional results, even in the long term.

Application of Endoprosthetic Replacement in Old Patients with Isolated Proximal Femoral Bone Metastases

BACKGROUND

Due to radical resection, endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) is more invasive and increases the risk of dislocation. Therefore, the suitability of EPR for elderly patients with metastatic tumor needs further investigation.

METHODS

Seventy-one adult patients with isolated proximal femoral bone metastases who underwent EPR were retrospectively analyzed and stratified into two groups: elderly age group (≥60 years, n = 31) and younger age group (<60 years, n = 40). The effect of age on prognosis was analyzed to determine whether EPR is beneficial in elderly patients with proximal femoral metastatic tumor. Cox regression modeling was used to evaluate the effect of different factors on postoperative survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Ten (32.26%) and 9 (22.50%) cases of perioperative complications were recorded in the elderly and younger age groups, respectively, with median survival times of 22.00 ± 4.61 months and 23.00 ± 2.85 months, respectively; a log-rank test showed that the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.657). A Cox regression model was established with patient age as the covariable to evaluate whether it affected postoperative survival. The risk of death due to age was not significant (p = 0.649), but malignancy and femoral metastasis type were significantly associated with postoperative survival (p = 0.001 and p = 0.019).

CONCLUSION

Although older patients have a slightly higher incidence of postoperative complications than younger patients, they do not experience severe adverse consequences. With rigorous selection and careful preparation, EPR is appropriate for the treatment of proximal femoral metastases in older patients, including those with Harrington type I-II acetabular invasion.

Effect of Pore Size of Porous-Structured Titanium Implants on Tendon Ingrowth

Purpose

The reconstruction of a tendon insertion on metal prostheses is a challenge in orthopedics. Of the available metal prostheses, porous metal prostheses have been shown to have better biocompatibility for tissue integration. Therefore, this study is aimed at identifying an appropriate porous structure for the reconstruction of a tendon insertion on metal prostheses.

Methods

Ti6Al4V specimens with a diamond-like porous structure with triply periodic minimal surface pore sizes of 300, 500, and 700 μm and a porosity of 58% (designated Ti300, Ti500, and Ti700, respectively) were manufactured by selective laser melting and were characterized with micro-CT and scanning electron microscopy for their porosity, pore size, and surface topography. The porous specimens were implanted into the patellar tendon of rabbits. Tendon integration was evaluated after implantation into the tendon at 4, 8, and 12 weeks by histology, and the fixation strength was evaluated with a pull-out test at week 12.

Results

The average pore sizes of the Ti300, Ti500, and Ti700 implants were 261, 480, and 668 μm, respectively. The Ti500 and Ti700 implants demonstrated better tissue growth than the Ti300 implant at weeks 4, 8, and 12. At week 12, the histological score of the Ti500 implant was 13.67 ± 0.58, and it had an area percentage of type I collagen of 63.90% ± 3.41%; both of these results were significantly higher than those for the Ti300 and Ti700 implants. The pull-out load at week 12 was also the highest in the Ti500 group.

Conclusion

Ti6Al4V implants with a diamond-like porous structure with triply periodic minimal surface pore size of 500 μm are suitable for tendon integration.

Evaluation of tumor-prostheses over time: Complications, functional outcome, and comparative statistical analysis after resection and reconstruction in orthopedic oncologic conditions in the lower extremities

Objectives:

Previous multicenter studies report variable outcomes and failure rates after tumor-prosthetic reconstructions. The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate implant survival, limb survival, and functional outcome in a cohort of patients who underwent resection of primary malignancies or aggressive benign bone tumors and reconstruction with modern tumor-prostheses in the lower extremities and (2) to provide comparison to a historical cohort on previous generations of tumor-prostheses from the same center.

Methods:

A longitudinal retrospective single-center study of 72 consecutive patients (F/M = 30/42), mean age = 44 (range = 7–84) years with bone, soft tissue sarcoma adjacent to bone (n = 69), and aggressive benign bone tumors (n = 3) having surgery between 2006 and 2016 with bone resection and reconstruction with tumor-prostheses were compared to a historical cohort from1985 to 2005. Revisions were classified as major and minor revisions. Causes of failure were classified according to the Henderson classification. Fine and Gray competing risk analysis was used for assessing cumulative incidence for implant revision and limb amputation. Functional outcome was evaluated with Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score system.

Results:

Forty-seven patients were alive at the end of the study. Mean follow-up was 6 years (range = 2–13 years). Ten-year cumulative risk of major revision was 18% (95% confidence interval = 9%–28%). Deep infection and recurrence of tumor caused most revisions in modern tumor-prostheses. Ten-year cumulative incidence of limb amputation was 11% (95% confidence interval = 3%–18%). According to the Henderson classification, the overall predominant failure mode was non-mechanical (n = 20, 51%). Mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score was 20 (67%) (range = 0–30).

Conclusion:

A minimum of 2 years follow-up with modern modular tumor-prostheses demonstrated a relatively low risk of implant failure and amputation and also an acceptable functional outcome. No statistical difference of, implant survival, limb survival and functional outcome between tumor-prostheses over two time periods was observed, possibly explained by Type 2 error.

Reconstruction survival of segmental megaendoprostheses: a retrospective analysis of 28 patients treated for intercalary bone defects after musculoskeletal tumor resections

INTRODUCTION

Intercalary endoprosthetic reconstructions have been reserved for patients with a limited life expectancy due to reports of high rates of early mechanical and reconstruction failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, we retrospectively analyzed 28 patients who underwent intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction of the femur (n = 17) or tibia (n = 11) regarding reconstruction survival and causes of complications and reconstruction failure.

RESULTS

A total of 56 stems were implanted in this collective, 67.9% of which were implanted using cementation. Eight different stem designs were implanted. The mean patient age at the time of operation was 42.3 years. The mean bone defect needing reconstruction measured 18.5 cm. Resection margins were clear in 96.4% of patients. Of twenty-six complications, five were not implant-associated. We observed infection in 10.7% (n = 3) and traumatic periprosthetic fracture in 3.6% (n = 1) of cases. The most frequent complication was aseptic stem loosening (ASL) (53.8%; n = 14) occurring in eight patients (28.6%). The metaphyseal and meta-diaphyseal regions of femur and tibia were most susceptible to ASL with a rate of 39.1% and 31.3% respectively. No ASLs occurred in epiphyseal or diaphyseal location. Overall reconstruction survival was 43.9% and 64.3% including patients who died of disease with their implant intact. Overall limb survival was 72.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Proper planning of segmental reconstructions including stem design with regard to unique anatomical and biomechanical properties is mandatory to address the high rates of ASL in metaphyseal and metadiaphyseal stem sites. With continued efforts of improving stem design in these implantation sites and decreasing rates of mechanical failure, indications for segmental megaendoprostheses may also extend to younger patients with the localized disease for their advantages of early weight bearing and a lack of donor-site morbidity.

Application and Development of Megaprostheses in Limb Salvage for Bone Tumors Around the Knee Joint

In recent decades, limb-salvage surgery has replaced amputation as the first choice for the treatment of bone tumors around knee. After tumor resection, there are a variety of reconstruction methods for us to choose, including autograft or allograft, inactivation and reimplantation, artificial prosthesis replacement, and allograft-prosthesis compound reconstruction. Compared with other reconstruction methods, artificial prosthesis reconstruction has some advantages: relatively simple, early weight bearing, fewer early complications, and good function in the early and mid-term follow-up. After decades of continuous improvements, the design of tumor prosthesis has reached a relatively mature stage, and the failure rate of prosthesis has also been declining year by year. However, artificial prostheses also have multiple complications such as infection, aseptic loosening, prosthetic breakage, and patients sometimes face the risk of revision or amputation. Therefore, clinicians need to deeply understand the characteristics of related complications and the principles of treatment.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of combined modular prothesis and cortical strut for revision proximal femur in giant cell tumor of bone patients

BACKGROUND

Femoral bone deficiency is a challenging problem in revision proximal femoral replacement. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of revision proximal femoral replacement as a salvage treatment for severe bone loss after oncologic proximal replacement surgery in patient with benign giant cell tumor of bone.

METHODS

16 patients (6 men and 10 women) were included in this retrospective study, with a mean age of 46.6 year at the time of revision surgery. All patients underwent revision proximal femoral replacement with the use of modular prosthesis and cortical strut allografts. The modified Harris Hip Score, Short Form 36, and musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score were used for patient evaluation. Regular follow-up was performed to evaluate the recurrence and metastases rate, limb function, and long-term complications of patients.

RESULTS

The average follow-up was 46.3 months (range, 26-75 months), during which there was no local recurrence and metastases of patient. At the latest follow-up, the mean modified Harris Hip Score was 70.6 points, which was significantly improved compared with that of preoperative (p < 0.05). The final follow-up results of Short Form 36, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score, and limb-length discrepancy were also significantly improved compared to that of preoperative (p < 0.05). At the latest follow-up, the implanted femoral stems were all stable and all cortical strut allografts were also incorporated to their own bone.

CONCLUSION

Using modular prosthesis and cortical strut allografts in revision, proximal femur replacement is an acceptable procedure for relatively young patient with severe proximal femoral bone loss after oncologic surgery with benign giant cell tumor of bone. More attentions should be paid to reduce the risk of complications in these complex reconstructions.

A long-term experience with Mutars tumor megaprostheses: analysis of 187 cases

PURPOSE

Modular megaprostheses have widely replaced allografts, as a reconstructive option; however, failures of these devices remain high. Aim of this study was to analyze outcomes, survival of the implants, incidence and types of complications with Mutars modular endoprostheses at long term.

METHODS

Between 2000 and 2019, 187 Mutars prostheses were implanted in two dedicated centers: 72 upper limbs and 115 lower limbs reconstructions. Diagnoses included 107 primary malignant bone or soft tissue tumors, 65 metastases, 8 benign bone tumors and 7 non-oncologic cases. Silver-coated prostheses were used in 118/187 (63%) cases.

RESULTS

At last follow-up, 76.5% of patients had retained their implant. The overall failure rate was 23.5% at a mean of 1.7 years. There were 22 mechanical failures and 22 non-mechanical failures. The overall implant survival to all types of failure was 68% and 52% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Infection was the most common mode of failure with an incidence of 6.9%. Implant survival to infection was better for silver-coated implants than for standard implants even if with no significant difference (p = 0.56). Functional results were satisfactory in 97% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall implant survival at long term was satisfactory with Mutars prostheses. The incidence of complications with Mutars prosthesis is in line with the incidence reported in the literature with other types of tumor prosthesis. The most frequent cause of failure was infection with a lower incidence in silver-coated prostheses; silver coating seems to prevent infection in distal femur and proximal tibia. The silver coating seems to be particularly useful in two-stage revisions with a lower incidence of secondary amputation. In higher risk patients, silver-coated prostheses are the preferable choice for the reduction of the reinfection rate. The functional results of Mutars prostheses were excellent or good in most of cases. The current paper is design to enhance the literature on megaprosthesis in tumor surgery, proven that this system is one of the most used all over the word and one of the best performing.

Compliant Compression Reconstruction of the Proximal Femur Is Durable Despite Minimal Bone Formation in the Compression Segment

BACKGROUND

Compliant compression fixation was developed to promote permanent bone-prosthesis osteointegration while preserving bone stock in patients needing endoprosthetic reconstructions. This has demonstrated durability in the distal femur, with reliable cortical hypertrophy adjacent to the implant. However, the extent of bone formation and prosthetic survivorship of proximal femoral replacements with compliant compression fixation has not been established.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) How much bone formation occurs across the compression segment in patients treated with a proximal femoral replacement implant using compliant compression fixation? (2) What were the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores at minimum 24-month follow-up of patients who received this reconstruction? (3) What is the implant survivorship free from implant removal or revision for any reason at final follow-up?

METHODS

From 2006 to 2018, we performed 213 proximal femoral replacements in patients with oncologic conditions of the proximal femur where the trochanters could not be preserved. Of these, 6% (12 of 213) were performed with an implant that used compliant compression fixation. We used this device in primary oncologic reconstructions in patients younger than 65 years of age without metastases who had nonirradiated bone with the requisite ≥ 2.5 mm of cortical thickness in the hope that it would provide more durable fixation and bone stock preservation than conventional reconstructions. All patients were followed for longer than 2 years except one who died in that interval. Median (range) follow-up was 6 years (2 to 10 years). Seven patients received diagnosis-specific chemotherapy in a consistent manner based on Children's Oncology Group chemotherapy protocols. Using the NIH-developed ImageJ open-access software, we measured the area of bone under compression on 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month radiographs and the length of the traction bar potential-compression distance, reconciling independent measures from two investigators using the identical method as published for the distal femur with compression fixation. The duration of prosthesis retention was evaluated using a competing risk analysis for the 11 surviving patients.

RESULTS

Bone hypertrophy in the compression segment was scant. At the final analysis, cortical bone formation was a median (range) of 4 (-7 to 14) above baseline. The median (range) MSTS score was 27 (19 to 30). One implant failed after trauma, and the patient underwent revision of the implant.

CONCLUSION

Despite scant bone formation across the compression segment and drastically less formation than reported for distal femoral replacements, compliant compression fixation of the proximal femur demonstrated good survivorship in patients 65 years or younger with localized sarcoma and nonirradiated, adequate bone stock in this small, retrospective series. Patients achieved good functional outcomes at final follow-up. The potential benefit of this reconstruction method should be weighed against the initial period of limited weightbearing and the life expectancy of the patient.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, cohort study.

Megaprosthesis Versus Allograft Prosthesis Composite for the Management of Massive Skeletal Defects: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Megaprosthesis and Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC) are the established treatment modalities for massive skeletal defects. There are a handful of studies comparing the use of megaprosthesis and APC in the management of substantial bone loss and it has always been a topic of debate regarding the superiority of one modality over the other. Therefore, we aim to compare the functional outcome and implant survivorship of each modality including complications, revision rates, amputation rate and mortality.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC) constitutes a skeletal allograft implanted with a revision type prosthesis in it. The biological environment provided by the allograft allows attachment of the muscles and tendons imparting better stability and function. However, the literature is not kind enough with APC due to associated risk of infection, disease transmission and nonunion at the graft-host junction. The megaprosthesis (MP) on the other hand is a nonbiologic modality with better survivorship but subservient functional outcome. Infection has been a major issue in both the modalities. Advancement in metallurgy using silver coated megaprosthesis also failed to provide strong evidence in preventing infection. The functional outcome is better with APC in both the upper and lower limbs. However, the survivorship is better with megaprosthesis, especially in the upper limb when revision rates were compared between the two modalities. Deep infection and mechanical complications were significantly higher in the APC group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of amputation rate, mortality, and local recurrence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE (CEBM)

2a.

Long-term outcomes and improved risk of revision following tumor endoprosthetic replacement of the distal femur: Single institutional results

Purpose

This study assessed revision characteristics following distal femur tumor endoprosthetic replacement.

Methods

Fifty-seven procedures were performed between 2005 and 2019. The cumulative incidence of implant revision was calculated with death as a competing risk.

Results

The all-cause revision rate was 21.1% (n = 12) at a mean 65.3 ± 47.3 months. Competing risk analysis revealed a cumulative revision incidence of 12.0% (95% CI, 3.6-25.9%) at five years and 36.5% (95% CI, 12.8-61.0%) at ten years.

Conclusions

We provide an accurate assessment of revision risk which is slightly lower than historical controls, with identification of failure modes to reliably inform patient expectations.

Level of evidence

III. Retrospective Study.

TiAl6V4 Alloy Surface Modifications and Their Impact on Biofilm Development of S. aureus and S. epidermidis

One of the most serious complications following joint replacement surgeries are periprosthetic infections (PIs) arising from the adhesion of bacteria to the artificial joint. Various types of titanium-aluminum-vanadium (TiAl6V4) alloy surface modifications (coatings with silver (Ag), titanium nitride (TiN), pure titanium (cpTi), combinations of cpTi and hydroxyapatite (HA), combinations of cpTi and tricalcium phosphate (TCP), and a rough-blasted surface of TiAl6V4) have been investigated to assess their effects on biofilm development. Biofilms were grown, collected, and analyzed after 48 h to measure their protein and glucose content and the cell viability. Biofilm-associated genes were also monitored after 48 h of development. There was a distinct difference in the development of staphylococcal biofilms on the surfaces of the different types of alloy. According to the findings of this study, the base alloy TiAl6V4 and the TiN-coated surface are the most promising materials for biofilm reduction. Rough surfaces are most favorable when it comes to bacterial infections because they allow an easy attachment of pathogenic organisms. Of all rough surfaces tested, rough-blasted TiAl6V4 was the most favorable as an implantation material; all the other rough surfaces showed more distinct signs of inducing the development of biofilms which displayed higher protein and polysaccharide contents. These results are supported by RT-qPCR measurements of biofilm associated genes for Staphylococcus aureus (icaA, icaC, fnbA, fnbB, clfB, atl) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (atle, aap).

Distal femoral impaction bone grafting in revision for tumor endoprosthesis

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction using tumor endoprosthesis has been widely used in cases with large bone defects caused by bone and soft tissue tumor resection of the distal femur which extend into the knee joint. However, reconstruction failure can lead to major problems in the long term. We have been performing impaction bone grafting with allogeneic cancellous bone during revision surgery for tumor endoprosthesis of the distal femur to compensate for the thinness and fragility of the remaining femur. The aim of this study is to examine the surgical method, problems, and clinical outcomes of revision surgery with impaction bone grafting.

METHODS

Three patients who underwent revision surgery for tumor endoprosthesis using impaction bone grafting at our institution with more than 2 years of follow-up were included.

RESULTS

Union between the graft and host bone were achieved in all cases. The mean time to radiographic union was 1.0 year (0.6-1.5 years). Although intraoperative penetration to the anterior cortex of the distal femur occurred in 2 cases, there were no postoperative fractures. There were no failures of tumor endoprosthesis at final observation.

CONCLUSION

Good short-term results were observed in 3 patients who underwent revision tumor endoprosthesis with impaction bone grafting following a bone and soft tissue tumor resection of the distal femur. The method was considered to be a useful treatment option. Impaction bone grafting is an established surgical option that can be applied to revision surgery for tumor endoprosthesis.

Compressive osseointegration for endoprosthetic reconstruction

This review summarizes the biomechanical concepts, clinical outcomes and limitations of compressive osseointegration fixation for endoprosthetic reconstruction. Compressive osseointe - gration establishes stable fixation and integration through a novel mechanism; a Belleville washer system within the spindle applies 400-800 PSI force at the boneimplant interface. Compressive osseointegration can be used whenever standard endoprosthetic reconstruction is indicated. However, its mode of fixation allows for a shorter spindle that is less limited by the length of remaining cortical bone. Most often compressive osseointegration is used in the distal femur, proximal femur, proximal tibia, and humerus but these devices have been customized for use in less traditional locations. Aseptic mechanical failure occurs earlier than with standard endoprosthetic reconstruction, most often within the first two years. Compressive osseointegration has repeatedly been proven to be non-inferior to standard endoprosthetic reconstruction in terms of aseptic mechanical failure. No demographic, device specific, oncologic variables have been found to be associated with increased risk of aseptic mechanical failure. While multiple radiographic parameters are used to assess for aseptic mechanical failure, no suitable method of evaluation exists. The underlying pathology associated with aseptic mechanical failure demonstrates avascular bone necrosis. This is in comparison to the bone hypertrophy and ingrowth at the boneprosthetic interface that seals the endosteal canal, preventing aseptic loosening.

Guideline for Limb-Salvage Treatment of Osteosarcoma

Osteosarcoma is the most common primary malignant bone tumor, occurring mainly in children and adolescents, and the limbs are the main affected sites. At present, limb‐salvage treatment is considered as an effective basic standard treatment for osteosarcoma of the limb. China has a vast territory, but the development of technology is not balanced,which requires sufficient theoretical coverage, strong technical guidance and the application of limb‐salvage treatment guidelines to the treatment of osteosarcoma. Therefore, to standardize and promote the development of limb‐salvage surgery technology and improve the success rate of limb‐salvage treatment, this guide systematically introduces limb‐salvage techniques for the treatment of patients with limb osteosarcoma through definition of limb‐salvage treatment, surgical methods, efficacy evaluation, postoperative treatment and prevention of complications, rehabilitation guidance, and follow‐up advice.

How is the outcome of the Limb Preservation System™ for reconstruction of hip and knee?

BACKGROUND

Despite tremendous advantages in the development and application of megaprostheses in tumour and revision surgery, complications are still not infrequently observed. Only two studies investigating the outcome of the LPS™ system in the proximal femur and distal femur/proximal tibia have been published thus far. Herein, mid-term implant survival rates one of the largest cohort of patients treated with the LPS™-system are presented aiming tp answer: 1) How is the outcome of the LPS™ system in the proximal femur and distal femur/proximal tibia? 2) Which factors are associated with altered implant survival? 3) What is the cumulative risk of complications according to Henderson?

HYPOTHESIS

The LPS™-system is associated with high complication rates that depend on implant site, with infections being most common.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fifty-seven patients who received the LPS™-system at the proximal femur (n=31), distal femur (n=21) and proximal tibia (n=5) between 2004 and 2010 for oncological (n=40) or non-oncological (n=17) causes, were retrospectively included. Median follow-up was 5.0 years (range, 0-12.4 years). Complications were classified according to Henderson into instability/soft tissue failure (type 1), aseptic loosening (type 2), structural failure (type 3), periprosthetic infection (type 4), tumour progression (type 5). Competing-risk-analyses were applied to estimate implant survival with death as the competing event.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients (45.6%) developed a complication, of whom 9 (29.0%) had a proximal femoral and 17 (65.4%) a distal femoral/proximal tibial implant. Type 4 complications were most common (n=11), followed by type 3 (n=6, including 2 yoke-fractures), type 1 and 2 (n=4 each), and type 5 (n=1). The only factor associated with the development of complications in the multivariate model was a distal femoral/proximal tibial implant (hazard-ratio: 7.418, 95% confidence-interval: 2.193-26.096, p=0.001), irrespective of reason for reconstruction and use of muscular flaps. The cumulative-incidence of failure including all complications was 34.3%, 40.7% and 67.1% at 3, 5 and 10 years, respectively.

DISCUSSION

The LPS™-system may be used for proximal femoral reconstructions both in the oncological and non-oncological setting. Rates of complications are higher in our cohort than reported in literature for other, comparable, megaprosthesis systems. Especially in the distal femur/proximal tibia, complication rates were high, partially attributable to the former implant design leading to fractures of the yoke-mechanism. As the implant has been remodelled after these issues became evident, there is no objection to use this megaprosthesis system today.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Observational Study.

Does a Competing Risk Analysis Show Differences in the Cumulative Incidence of Revision Surgery Between Patients with Oncologic and Non-oncologic Conditions After Distal Femur Replacement?

BACKGROUND

Distal femur replacement is frequently used for limb salvage after bone tumor resections. It is also used in patients with severe bone loss because of traumatic conditions or revision TKA. Some studies on distal femur replacement reported on revision-free survival without distinguishing between patients with oncologic diagnoses and those without, although these patients might be incomparable because of their differences in important patient- and disease-specific characteristics. This may lead to an inaccurate and undifferentiated interpretation of the results of survival analyses.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the overall cumulative incidence of revision surgery after cemented and cementless distal femoral replacement, as determined with a competing risk analysis? (2) Does the cumulative incidence of revision surgery change over time? (3) Are there differences in the cumulative incidence of revision surgery between patients with oncologic conditions and those without who are treated with cemented or cementless distal femoral replacement?

METHODS

A total of 403 patients were possible candidates for distal femoral replacement. Of these, 56 patients elected to undergo different procedures, 83 were excluded because an expendable growing prosthesis was implanted, and 28 were lost to follow-up. Therefore, 229 patients who underwent distal femoral replacement for oncologic or non-oncologic reasons between 1983 and 2016 were retrospectively included in this study. The type of fixation method (cemented or cementless) was obtained from the patients' medical records, operation reports, and radiographic analyses from plain radiographs. All radiographs were standardized and obtained at standard time intervals in our institution. No algorithm regarding the fixation approach was followed. According to our data, patients receiving cementless fixation were younger and therefore likely to be more active than those receiving cemented fixation. The median follow-up duration of the overall cohort was 85 months (range 0.1-391 months). Patients who died or had revision surgery before the 2-year minimum follow-up interval were adequately considered using competing risk calculation. The reasons for revision surgery were classified using the classification system proposed by the International Society for Limb Salvage. A competing risk analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative incidence function of revision, accounting for death as a competing event. To evaluate the influence of potential prognostic factors, including diagnosis (oncologic versus non-oncologic), fixation (cemented versus cementless), year of distal femoral replacement, age, and sex on the occurrence of revision surgery, univariate and multivariable Fine and Gray models were applied.

RESULTS

The competing risks analysis revealed cumulative incidences of revision surgery for any cause (Types 1 to 5) of 26% (95% CI, 20.3%-31.9%) at 12 months, 37.9% (95% CI, 31.3%-44.4%) at 24 months, 52.6% (95% CI, 45.1%-59.5%) at 5 years, and 58.2% (95% CI, 50.1%-65.4%) at 10 years for all patients. Rotating hinge-type prostheses showed a lower cumulative incidence of revision surgery (41.6%; 95% CI, 31.8%-51%) than fixed-hinge prostheses did (64%; 95% CI, 50.5%-74.5% ) at 5 years (Gray's test: p = 0.01). According to the multivariate Fine and Gray model, the year of surgery did not have any effect on the risk of revision surgery (1994 to 2003: hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.07); 2004 to 2016: HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.52-1.34; p = 0.26). The multivariate analysis, adjusted for disease, sex, age, cementation, and year of surgery, revealed a difference in the risk of revision surgery between patients with oncologic disease and those with non-oncologic disease (HR 0.44 for oncologic versus non-oncologic; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87; p = 0.02) and a reduction in the risk of overall revision with cemented fixation in patients with oncologic disease (HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.98; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that even with newer implants, there was a high incidence of revision surgery after distal femoral replacement. According to our analysis, patients with oncologic diagnoses have a lower likelihood of revision when the stem is cemented whereas the type of fixation did not impact patients with non-oncologic diagnoses. Because of differences in patient demographics (age, etiology of disease, and use of chemotherapy) and outcomes of fixation, oncologic and non-oncologic patients should be analyzed separately in survival studies about distal femoral replacement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Fixed-hinge cemented modular implants: An effective reconstruction technique following primary distal femoral bone tumor resection. A 136-case multicenter series

BACKGROUND

Reconstruction by endoprosthesis is widespread after bone tumor resection. The design and type of fixation and of hinge remain a matter of debate. The aim of the present study was to assess survival, complications and functional results in a homogeneous series of adult patients undergoing bone defect reconstruction following distal femoral tumor resection, using a single model of fixed-hinge cemented endoprosthesis, at a minimum 5 years' follow-up.

HYPOTHESIS

The study hypotheses were that loosening and infection are the main causes of failure, and that this type of reconstruction is reliable following distal femoral resection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients aged over 17 years undergoing reconstruction using the Stanmore Mets® fixed-hinge cemented modular endoprosthesis following distal femoral resection for primary bone tumor in 4 French reference centers between 2004 and 2013 were included. Epidemiological data, MSTS functional score, clinical and radiological examination results, complications and survival with types of failure according to the Henderson classification were assessed.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-six patients (68 male, 68 female; mean age, 41.2 years [range, 17-77 years]) were included. Mean follow-up was 81 months [range, 61-134 months]. Thirty-two patients (38%) experienced a total 67 complications requiring surgical revision: mainly infection (n=28) or mechanical failure (n=26). Overall implant survival was 78% at 5 years. There were 30 implant failures on the Henderson classification. Mean MSTS score was 82%.

DISCUSSION

The present results are comparable to those of the literature and for other types of reconstruction. Recent meta-analyses suggest that type of hinge and of stem fixation have little effect on implant survival. International comparative studies are needed to determine the exact role of each type of reconstruction according to the patient profile.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, multicenter retrospective series.

The process of bone regeneration from devitalization to revitalization after pedicle freezing with immunohistochemical and histological examination in rabbits

The pedicle freezing procedure by liquid nitrogen is a method for the reconstruction of tumor-bearing bone after malignant tumor resection. However, the regenerative mechanism of bone after the pedicle freezing procedure is unclear. We investigated the complete process from devitalization to revitalization of bone after the pedicle freezing procedure in 13 rabbits. After osteotomy the 5 mm distal femurs were immersed in liquid nitrogen, and the specimens were divided into frozen area and sub-frozen area. The bilateral femurs were harvested for evaluation of bone regeneration by histological and immunohistochemical examination (VEGF, CD31, BMP-2 and Runx2) from 1 week to 52 weeks. The diameter of operating femurs was compared with contralateral femurs from 6 weeks to 52 weeks. No viable cells could be found from 1 to 8 weeks in the frozen area, and a mean 1.83 cm necrotic range were detected in the sub-frozen area. The periosteal reaction, massive fibrous tissue and immature bone matrix invaded from the normal area to the necrotic area from 12 weeks. Subsequently, the necrotic bone was gradually replaced by newly formed bone by creeping substitution, with endochondral and intramembrane bone formation. The diameter of frozen femurs was significantly larger than the contralateral femur at the same period from 8 weeks to 52 weeks (P < 0.01). All immunohistochemical factors were positively expressed in both areas at different time points. The active osteoblasts and microvessel migrated from marrow cavity and periosteum into dead bone. This study suggested that the frozen bone not only provides a scaffold but also possesses excellent osteoinductive properties.

What is the Likelihood That Tumor Endoprostheses Will Experience a Second Complication After First Revision in Patients With Primary Malignant Bone Tumors And What Are Potential Risk Factors?

BACKGROUND

Endoprosthetic reconstruction of massive bone defects has become the reconstruction method of choice after limb-sparing resection of primary malignant tumors of the long bones. Given the improved survival rates of patients with extremity bone sarcomas, an increasing number of patients survive but have prosthetic complications over time. Several studies have reported on the outcome of first endoprosthetic complications. However, no comprehensive data, to our knowledge, are available on the likelihood of an additional complication and the associated risk factors, despite the impact of this issue on the affected patients.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the types and timing of complications and the implant survivorship free from revision after the first complication? (2) Does survivorship free from repeat revision for a second complication differ by anatomic sites? (3) Is the type of first complication associated with the risk or the type of a second complication? (4) Are patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors associated with a higher likelihood of repeat revision?

METHODS

Between 1993 and 2015, 817 patients underwent megaprosthetic reconstruction after resection of a tumor in the long bones with a single design of a megaprosthetic system. No other prosthetic system was used during the study period. Of those, 75% (616 of 817) had a bone sarcoma. Seventeen patients (3%) had a follow-up of less than 6 months, 4.5% (27 of 599) died with the implant intact before 6 months and 43% (260 of 599 patients) underwent revision. Forty-three percent of patients (260 of 599) experienced a first prosthetic complication during the follow-up period. Ten percent of patients (26 of 260) underwent amputation after the first complication and were excluded from further analysis. Second complications were classified using the classification of Henderson et al. to categorize surgical results. Briefly, this system categorizes complications as wound dehiscence (Type 1); aseptic loosening (Type 2); implant fractures or breakage and periprosthetic fracture (Type 3); infection (Type 4); and tumor progression (Type 5). Implant survival curves were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated with their respective 95% CIs in multivariate Cox regression models.

RESULTS

A second complication occurred in 49% of patients (115 of 234) after a median of 17 months (interquartile range [IQR] 5 to 48) after the surgery for the first complication. The time to complication did not differ between the first (median 16 months; IQR 5 to 57) and second complication (median 17 months; IQR 5 to 48; p = 0.976). The implant survivorship free from revision surgery for a second complication was 69% (95% CI 63 to 76) at 2 years and 46% (95% CI 38 to 53) at 5 years. The most common mode of second complication was infection 39% (45 of 115), followed by structural complications with 35% (40 of 115). Total bone and total knee reconstructions had a reduced survivorship free from revision surgery for a second complication at 5 years (HR 2.072 [95% CI 1.066 to 3.856]; p = 0.031) compared with single joint replacements. With the numbers we had, we could not show a difference between the survivorship free of revision for a second complication based on the type of the first complication (HR 0.74 [95% CI 0.215 to 2.546]; p = 0.535). We did not detect an association between total reconstruction length, patient BMI, and patient age and survivorship free from revision for a second complication. Patients had a higher risk of second complications after postoperative radiotherapy (HR 1.849 [95% CI 1.092 to 3.132]; p = 0.022) but not after preoperative radiotherapy (HR 1.174 [95% CI 0.505 to 2.728]; p = 0.709). Patients with diabetes at the time of initial surgery had a reduced survivorship free from revision for a second complication (HR 4.868 [95% CI 1.497 to 15.823]; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who undergo revision to treat a first megaprosthetic complication must be counseled regarding the high risk of future complications. With second complications occurring relatively soon after the first revision, regular orthopaedic follow-up visits are advised. Preoperative rather than postoperative radiotherapy should be performed when possible. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches in treating complications considering implant survivorship free of revision for a second complication.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Establishment and validation of a nomogram model for aseptic loosening after tumor prosthetic replacement around the knee: a retrospective analysis

Background

Aseptic loosening has become the main cause of prosthetic failure in medium- to long-term follow-up. The objective of this study was to establish and validate a nomogram model for aseptic loosening after tumor prosthetic replacement around knee.

Methods

We collected data on patients who underwent tumor prosthetic replacements. The following risk factors were analyzed: tumor site, stem length, resection length, prosthetic motion mode, sex, age, extra-cortical grafting, custom or modular, stem diameter, stem material, tumor type, activity intensity, and BMI. We used univariate and multivariate Cox regression for analysis. Finally, the significant risk factors were used to establish the nomogram model.

Results

The stem length, resection length, tumor site, and prosthetic motion mode showed a tendency to be related to aseptic loosening, according to the univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed that the tumor site, stem length, and prosthetic motion mode were independent risk factors. The internal validation indicated that the nomogram model had acceptable predictive accuracy.

Conclusions

A nomogram model was developed for predicting the prosthetic survival rate without aseptic loosening. Patients with distal femoral tumors and those who are applied with fixed hinge and short-stem prostheses are more likely to be exposed to aseptic loosening.

[Current results of tumour endoprosthetics in adolescents and adults]

BACKGROUND

The majority of osteoarticular defects after tumor resection in adolescent and adult patients are reconstructed using megaendoprosthetic implants. However, even infant and pre-teen children undergo reconstruction of defects using so-called growing prostheses with an increasing frequency.

OBJECTIVES

Presentation of current techniques, outcomes and the most common complications of megaendoprosthetic reconstruction following tumour resection.

METHODS

Selective literature review and discussion of current concepts and knowledge in megaendoprosthetic reconstruction against personal experience and treatment strategies.

RESULTS

Megaendoprosthetic reconstructions achieve good functional results and long-term limb salvage (ca. 90% of cases) in adolescent and adult patients. Still, periprosthetic infection and mechanical failure of joint components are among the most common complications observed. In infant and pre-teen children treated by reconstruction using a growing prosthesis, mandatory maintenance operations-in the process of elongating the implant-must also be considered when assessing complication risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Megaendoprosthetic reconstructions of osteoarticular defects are a standard procedure in adolescent and adult patients. Despite a substantial complication rate, limb salvage is achieved in a majority of patients. When using growing prostheses in younger children, one needs to be aware of additional servicing procedures that occur independently of those arising from complications.

[Non-cemented modular prosthetic reconstruction for bone defect after tumor resection in lower extremities]

OBJECTIVE

To report the preliminary clinical results and analyze the prognostic factors of prosthetic failures with non-cemented modular prosthetic reconstruction after tumor resection in lower extremities.

METHODS

A clinical data of 150 patients with lower extremity tumors treated with MEGASYSTEM-C non-cemented modular prosthetic reconstruction between October 2011 and September 2016 was retrospectively analyzed. There were 88 males and 62 females, aged from 12 to 81 years, with a median age of 24 years. According to World Health Organization (WHO) classification of bone tumors, 120 cases were primary malignant tumors, 27 cases were intermediate tumors, and 3 cases were metastatic tumors. Among them, 134 cases underwent primary operation and 16 cases underwent reoperation after recurrence. Eighty-seven patients with malignant tumors received chemotherapy before and after operation, and no patient received local radiotherapy during perioperative period. Proximal femur was reconstructed in 32 cases, distal femur in 83 cases, and proximal tibia in 35 cases. The postoperative follow-up time, the results of oncology (survival status and tumor recurrence), and prosthesis failure (prosthesis survival rate, reasons for failure, treatment plan after failure) were recorded. The reason of the prosthesis failure was classified into 5 types according to the classification defined by Henderson et al. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Log-Rank test were used to analyze patient and prosthesis survival. Lower extremity function was assessed by using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system and MSTS scores were compared for patients with different reconstruction sites.

RESULTS

All patients were followed up 5-84 months, the median follow-up time was 39 months. During the follow-up period, there were 116 cases of tumor-free survival, 10 cases of tumor-bearing survival, and 24 died of lung metastasis or multiple metastases. The 3-year and 5-year survival rates of 120 patients with primary malignant tumors were 83.1% and 76.6%. There was no significant difference in survival rate between different reconstruction sites ( P=0.851). Seven cases (4.7%) had local recurrence at 7-21 months after operation. The 3-year and 5-year survival rates of the prosthesis in 150 patients were 94.4% and 92.5%. There was no significant difference in survival rate between different reconstruction sites ( P=0.765). There were 26 failures in 24 patients (16.0%) during the follow-up period. There were 9 cases of type 1 failure, 1 case of type 2 failure, 3 cases of type 3 failure, 5 cases of type 4 failure, and 8 cases of type 5 failure. At last follow-up, 120 of the 126 patients survived without prosthetic failure. Except that the influence of different parts of prosthesis on the incidence of type 4 failure ( P=0.029), the influence of chemotherapy on the incidence of type 5 failure ( P=0.002) were significant, the influence of other types of failure on different reconstructed parts of prosthesis, initial operation, and perioperative chemotherapy had no significant difference ( P>0.05). There were 5 cases of amputation (4 cases of type 5 failure, 1 case of type 4 failure), 3 cases of prosthesis removal (1 case of type 2 failure, 1 case of type 3 failure, 1 case of type 4 failure), 3 cases of revision while keeping the original prosthesis (2 cases of type 1 failure, 1 case of type 5 failure). The overall MSTS score was 24±3. The MSTS scores were 24±3, 25±3, and 23±3 in patients whose reconstruction sites located in proximal femur, distal femur, and proximal tibia, respectively, showing no significant difference ( F=3.014, P=0.052).

CONCLUSION

The short-term follow-up showed a lower incidence of complications and good function for MEGASYSTEM-C non-cement modular prosthesis system in treatment of bone defects after lower limb tumor resection. The main factors affecting the early survival of prosthesis were tumor progression and infection.

Current review of surgical management options for extremity bone sarcomas

Modern surgical management of extremity bone sarcomas is governed by limb-sparing surgery combined with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

All the resection and reconstruction techniques have to achieve oncologic excision margins, with survival rates and functional results superior to amputation.

The main reconstruction techniques of bone defects resulted after resection are: modular endoprosthetic reconstruction; bone graft reconstruction; bone transport; resection arthrodesis; and rotationplasty.

Oncologic resection and modular endoprosthetic reconstruction are the generally approved surgical options adopted for the majority of cases in major specialized bone sarcoma centres.

Good basic principles, efficient multidisciplinary approach and sustained research in the field can provide a better future for the challenge posed by extremity bone sarcoma treatment.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:174-182. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180048

Long-term results of the Global Modular Replacement System tumor prosthesis for reconstruction after limb-sparing bone resections in orthopedic oncologic conditions: Results from a national cohort

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We investigated implant revision, implant failure, and amputation risk after limb-sparing bone tumor surgery using the Global Modular Replacement System (GMRS) tumor prosthesis in patients suffering from bone sarcomas (BS), giant cell tumors (GCT), or metastatic bone disease (MBD).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study of a nationwide consecutive cohort (n = 119, 47 [12-81] years, M/F = 65/54) having limb-sparing surgery and reconstruction using the GMRS tumor prosthesis due to bone tumors (BS/GCT/MBD = 70/8/41) from 2005 to 2013. Anatomical locations were as followed: distal femur (n = 49), proximal femur (n = 41), proximal tibia (n = 26), or total femur (n = 3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and competing risk analysis with death as a competing risk were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

For BS and GCT patients, 5-year patient survival was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 59-85%) and for MBD 33% (95% CI: 19-48%). Thirty-two patients underwent revision surgery (5-year revision incidence 14%; 95% CI: 8-21%). Twelve patients had revision of bone-anchored parts (implant failure) with a 5-year revision incidence 6% (95% CI: 2-10%). Ten amputations were performed due to local relapse (n = 9) or recurrent infections (n = 1) with a 5-year incidence of amputation: 8% (95% CI: 3-13%).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a low risk of revision and amputation when using the GMRS tumor prosthesis for limb-sparing bone tumor.

Uncemented, curved, short endoprosthesis stem for distal femoral reconstruction: early follow-up outcomes

Background

Uncemented endoprosthetic knee replacement has become a mainstream treatment for malignant tumours of the distal femur. Most femoral stems, however, are straight and therefore poorly fit the anteriorly bowed curvature of the femur. To address this issue, we used a short, curved, uncemented press-fit femoral stem and evaluated its short-term outcomes after reconstruction of the distal femur.

Methods

Forty-two patients underwent distal femur replacement using curved press-fit stem. To assess the interface, we measured the axial length of the press-fit area and the perpendicular distance of the radiolucent area between the stem and bone on digital images obtained using tomosynthesis with Shimadzu Metal Artefact Reduction Technology (T-SMART). Postoperative complications and oncological outcomes were monitored at each follow-up visit.

Results

Of the 42 patients enrolled in the study, two had cancer-related deaths and one had local tumour recurrence. The minimum follow-up time of the surviving patients was 24 months, with no incidence of aseptic loosening or mechanical failure of the prosthesis. The average effective contact length between the press-fit stem and bone was 74.0 mm, with nearly undetectable radiolucent gaps between the implant and the bone on medial-lateral and anteroposterior views.

Conclusions

Over the short term, uncemented, curved, short stem provides a stable bone-prosthesis interface without any aseptic loosening.

Growth of epiphysis after epiphyseal-preservation surgery for childhood osteosarcoma around the knee joint

BACKGROUND

Epiphyseal-preservation surgery for osteosarcoma is an alternative method which has been indicated carefully to selected patients. The tumor-devitalised autograft treated with liquid nitrogen procedure is one of the biological reconstruction method to reconstruct the defect after tumor excision. The limb length discrepancy is usually appeared in children with their growth after limb-sparing surgery. This study was aimed to investigated the growth of residual epiphysis following epiphyseal-preservation surgery for childhood osteosarcoma around the knee joint.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 12 patients with osteosarcoma who underwent epiphysis preserving tumor excision (8 in distal femur and 4 in proximal tibia) and reconstructed by using tumor-devitalized autograft treated with liquid nitrogen. The mean patient age was 11 (range, 6 to 14) years. The mean follow-up period were 63 (range, 41 to 90) months. Epiphysis transverse growth rate, epiphysis-width discrepancy (EWD) and collapse of epiphysis were evaluated by using pre- and post-operative whole standing leg radiographs. A retrospective chart review was performed to investigate functional outcome, complications and oncological status.

RESULTS

The mean growth of epiphysis rate was 12.6% (range, 3.3 to 28.0%) of affected side and 12.7% (range, 3.8 to 28.9%) of contralateral side, mean EWD was 0.1 mm (range, - 1.0 to 1.7 mm), mean LLD was + 26.1 mm (range, + 1 to + 48 mm) and two patients with distal femoral reconstruction underwent limb lengthening of tibia. There was no collapse of the residual epiphysis. The mean MSTS score was 27.7 (range, 18 to 30).

CONCLUSIONS

Epiphysis transverse growth was not diminished, and there was absence of epiphyseal collapse even after epiphyseal-preservation surgery in this small series of childhood osteosarcoma around the knee. With careful assessment for epiphyseal tumor involvement, epiphyseal-preservation surgery shall be possible, and could be an alternative method worth considering.

Implant and limb survival after resection of primary bone tumors of the lower extremities and reconstruction with mega-prostheses fifty patients followed for a mean of forteen years

PURPOSE

Previous studies reported variable outcome and failure rates after mega-prosthetic reconstructions in the lower extremities. The purpose of this study was to make a long-term single-center evaluation of patients treated with limb-sparing surgery and reconstruction with mega-prostheses in the lower extremities.

METHODS

We identified 50 patients (osteosarcoma (n = 30), chondrosarcoma (n = 9), osteoclastoma (n = 6), Ewing sarcoma (n = 4), angiosarcoma (n = 1)), who underwent limb-sparing reconstruction of the lower extremities (proximal femur (n = 9), distal femur (n = 29), proximal tibia (n = 9), and the entire femur (n = 3)) between 1985 and 2005. Surviving patients not lost to follow-up were evaluated using the MSTS score. Causes of failure were classified according to the Henderson classification. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used for evaluation of patient, prosthesis, and limb survival.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients were alive at follow-up. Fifty-four percent had revision surgery (n = 27). The ten year patient survival was 60% (95%CI 46-74%); the ten year implant survival was 24% (95%CI 9-41%), and the ten year limb survival rate was 83% (95%CI 65-96%). Type 1 failure occurred in 9%, type 2 in 16%, type 3 in 28%, type 4 in 18%, and type 5 in 3%. Mean MSTS score was 21 (range, 6-30), representing a median score of 71%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our long-term results with mega-prostheses justify the use of limb-salvage surgery and prosthetic reconstruction. Our results are fully comparable with other findings, with regard to limb and prosthesis survival, but also with regard to functional outcome.

Development of finite element model for customized prostheses design for patient with pelvic bone tumor

The aim of this study was to design a hemi-pelvic prosthesis for a patient affected by pelvic sarcoma. To investigate the biomechanical functionality of the pelvis reconstructed with designed custom-made prosthesis, a patient-specific finite element model of whole pelvis with primary ligaments inclusive was constructed based on the computed tomography images of the patient. Then, a finite element analysis was performed to calculate and compare the stress distribution between the normal and implanted pelvis models when undergoing three different static conditions-both-leg standing, single-leg standing for the healthy and the affected one. No significant differences were observed in the stresses between the normal and reconstructed pelvis for both-leg standing, but 20%-40% larger stresses were predicted for the peak stress of the single-leg standing (affected side). Moreover, two- to threefold of peak stresses were predicted within the prostheses compared to that of the normal pelvis especially for single-leg standing case, however, still below the allowable fatigue limitation. The study on the load transmission functionality of prosthesis indicated that it is crucial to carry out finite element analysis for functional evaluation of the designed customized prostheses before three-dimensional printing manufacturing, allowing better understanding of the possible peak stresses within the bone as well as the implants for safety precaution. The finite element model can be equally applicable to other bone tumor model for biomechanical studying.

Is total femoral replacement for non-oncologic and oncologic indications a safe procedure in limb preservation surgery? A single center experience of 22 cases

Background

Several surgical options for the reconstruction of massive bone defects have been described and include biologic methods with autografts and allografts, and the use of tumor endoprostheses (total femoral replacement, TFR). Several types of modular TFR are available, but nevertheless unpredictable outcomes and high complication rates have been described from most authors. The present study aims to compare results after TFR performed with modular total femur prosthesis MML (Fa. ESKA/Orthodynamics) in patients with and without malignant disease.

Methods

Retrospective chart review and functional investigation (Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, Harris Hip Score (HHS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), SF-12 Health Survey, and failure classification according to Henderson) of TFR cases from 1995 to 2011. Indications for TFR were malignant tumor resection from the femur (n = 9, Group A) or failure of a revision arthroplasty without history of malignant disease (n = 13, Group B).

Results

Thirty-six patients were treated during the study period, of whom 22 could be investigated clinically after a mean follow-up of 63 months. Overall failure rate for TFR was 59.1%, leading to 38 surgical revisions. The most common failure mechanisms were Type I (soft tissue), followed by Type IV (infection) and Type III (mechanical failure). Mean MSTS score out of 30 was 13 (range 1–25), with significantly higher scores in Group A (mean 19, range 3–25) than Group B (mean 9, range 1–15).

Conclusion

TFR is an established procedure to restore femoral integrity. However, complication rates are considerably high, and depend mainly on the age at initial reconstruction.