Interkalare Rekonstruktion diaphysärer Knochendefekte mit einem modularen Diapyhsenersatzsystem: Klinische Ergebnisse

Peri- and Interprosthetic Femoral Fractures-Current Concepts and New Developments for Internal Fixation

Treatment of peri- and interprosthetic fractures represents a challenge in orthopedic trauma surgery. Multiple factors such as osteoporosis, polymedication and comorbidities impede therapy and the rehabilitation of this difficult fracture entity. This article summarizes current concepts and highlights new developments for the internal fixation of periprosthetic fractures. Since the elderly are unable to follow partial weight bearing, stable solutions are required. Therefore, a high primary stability is necessary. Numerous options, such as new angular stable plate systems with additional options for variable angle screw positioning, already exist and are in the process of being further improved. Lately, individually produced custom-made implants are offering interesting alternatives to treat periprosthetic fractures.

Preliminary results of a new intercalary modular endoprosthesis for the management of diaphyseal bone metastases

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate functional outcomes of patients and to analyze complication rates of modular intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction after resection of metastatic diaphyseal bone lesions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between December 2017 and February 2020, 22 patients (15 males, 7 females; median age: 64.2 years; range, 49 to 91) who underwent reconstruction with modular intercalary endoprostheses for metastatic bone tumors at five different centers were retrospectively analyzed. Age, sex, diagnosis, follow-up duration, previous treatments of patients, and resection lengths were recorded. The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scores (MSTS) were used to assess functional status of available patients at the final follow-up. Failures were categorized according to the Henderson classification.

RESULTS

Locations of the resected tumors included 10 humeri (45.5%), five tibiae (22.7%), and seven femurs (31.8%). The length of the resected tissues ranged from 35 mm to 180 mm. Seven patients (31.8%) died of disease, and one patient died of pneumonia within follow-up period. The functional outcomes of surviving patients were satisfying with a median MSTS score of 86.9% (range, 70 to 100%) at a median follow-up of 17 (range, 8 to 26) months. There were two cases of type II (9%), one cases of type IIIa (4.5%), two cases of type IIIb (9%), and one case of type IV (4.5%) failure. Complications were most commonly observed in tibial reconstructions.

CONCLUSION

The good short-term functional results were achieved in surviving patients. Uncomplicated patients were able to perform daily living activities without limitations. The overall rate of complications was relatively low and, among them, mechanical problems were the most commonly encountered problems.

Cement Intercalary Reconstruction After Bone Tumor Resection

The optimal type of reconstruction after intercalary tumor resection is unclear. Megaprosthetic and biologic reconstructions may restore bone stock, but their complexity may result in complications and delays in rehabilitation and initiation of adjuvant treatment. Instead, cement spacer permanent reconstruction can be performed as index surgery. The authors studied the files of 20 patients who had bone tumors of the humerus and femur and underwent wide margin resection and permanent cement spacer intercalary reconstruction. Mean follow-up was 52 months (range, 2-255 months). The authors evaluated the survival and function of the patients and the outcome of the cement spacer reconstructions. Five patients who had metastatic bone disease died of their disease with their cement spacer reconstruction in place without complications. One patient who had bone sarcoma experienced a local recurrence that was treated with hip disarticulation. Three patients who had bone sarcomas were converted to biologic reconstruction because of disease remission and had improved prognosis without complications related to cement spacer reconstruction. Two patients experienced mechanical failure of femoral reconstruction and underwent revision with an intercalary biologic reconstruction. No patient who had a cement spacer humeral reconstruction experienced a complication, and no patient experienced infection of the reconstruction. Mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score of the patients with cement spacer humeral and femoral reconstructions was 85% and 82%, respectively. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(4):e593-e599.].

[Complication profile and revision concepts for megaprosthetic reconstruction following tumour resection at the hip]

BACKGROUND

Tumourous destruction of the periacetabular region and the proximal femur is a typical consequence of either primary malignant bone tumour manifestation or skeletal metastatic diseases. Pathological fractures of the proximal femur and periacetabular regions due to primary manifestation or metastatic disorders are frequent.

OBJECTIVES

Presentation of the most common complications of tumour endoprostheses at the hip and a description of management strategies, including therapeutic recommendations and concepts for complication avoidance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The current knowledge and our own experience of complication management with the use of megaprostheses around the hip are presented.

RESULTS

Compared to elective/primary total hip arthroplasty, megaprosthetic reconstructions following tumour resections have an increased rate of postoperative deep infections, dislocations, incidence of pathological and periprosthetic fractures and of deep vein thrombosis. The postoperative mortality and local tumour recurrence along with deep infections represent the most serious complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to primary arthroplasty, the risk of failure and complications following tumour-endoprosthetic replacement is increased. Precise surgical planning and careful selection and preoperative preparation of suitable patients should be performed in close interdisciplinary cooperation with final decision-making on an interdisciplinary tumour board. Wide resection and advanced reconstruction, as well as complicated palliative stabilization due to malignant bone tumour growth around the hip joint should be performed in musculoskeletal tumour centres with profound expertise in osteosynthetic and endoprosthetic reconstruction and consecutive complication management of the pelvis and the proximal femur.

[Treatment of severe distal humeral bone defects with three-dimensional printing technology]

Objective

To explore the application of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology in precise and individualized surgical treatment of severe distal humeral bone defect.

Methods

Five patients with severe distal humeral bone defects were treated with customized 3D printing prostheses between December 2010 and December 2015. There were 4 males and 1 female, with an age of 23-57 years (mean, 35 years); and the length of the bone defect was 5-12 cm (mean, 8 cm). The cause of injury was mechanical injury in 2 cases and strangulation in 3 cases. All of them were the open fracture of Gustilo type Ⅲ. There were 2 cases of radial fracture, 1 case of cubital nerve injury, and 3 cases of radial nerve injury. The time from injury to one-stage operation was 6-18 hours (mean, 10 hours). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative fluoroscopy were recorded. During follow-up, the anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films of the elbow joints were performed to identify whether there was prosthesis loosening; Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) and upper extremity Enneking score were used to evaluate limb function.

Results

The operation time was 140-190 minutes (mean, 165 minutes). The intraoperative blood loss was 310-490 mL (mean, 415 mL). The intraoperative fluoroscopy was 1-3 times (mean, 1.6 times). Five patients were followed up 14-38 months (mean, 21 months). The wound exudate occurred in 1 case and cured after anti-inflammatory local dressing change; the subcutaneous hematoma occurred in 1 case, and improved after color Doppler ultrasound guided puncture and drainage. The MEPS scores and the Enneking scores were all significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones ( P<0.05). Except MEPS score between 6 and 12 months after operation had no significant difference ( P>0.05), there were significant differences in MEPS scores and Enneking scores between the other time points ( P<0.05). During the follow-up, no prosthetic loosening or joint dislocation occurred.

Conclusion

3D printing technology can achieve personalized treatment of severe distal humeral bone defects, obtain relatively good elbow joint function, and has less postoperative complications and satisfactory effectiveness.

Ultra-short stem anchorage in the proximal tibial epiphysis after intercalary tumor resections: analysis of reconstruction survival in four patients at a mean follow-up of 56 months

INTRODUCTION

Tumors localized in the proximal tibial meta-diaphysis often lead to osteoarticular resections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, we retrospectively reviewed four patients who underwent intercalary tumor resection and reconstruction using an ultra-short stem in the proximal tibial epiphysis, a procedure that to our knowledge has not been reported in literature so far.

RESULTS

At the time of operation, the mean patient age was 26.2 years. Three patients were male and one was female. Patients were diagnosed with osteosarcoma in two cases, Ewing's sarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone in one case each. In all cases, wide tumor resections were achieved (osteotomy 3-3.5 cm below the tibia plateau joint surface, mean resection length of tibial bone 18 cm) at a mean time of operation of 198.8 min. Two superficial wound-healing disorders occurred, leading to one surgical revision in each case. One local tumor recurrence occurred 12 months after operation in a patient who discontinued his adjuvant chemotherapy. This patient died of disease, 31 months after operation. Three patients are alive with no evidence of disease at a mean follow-up of 56 months. Walking is not impaired and light sports activities have been reported in all cases. The mean MSTS score is 28/30.

CONCLUSIONS

Therefore, we report this reconstruction technique to be considered for special indications where the functional outcome can be improved by preservation of the knee joint in tumors of the proximal meta-diaphyseal tibial region.

[Importance of revision- and tumor-endoprosthetics in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremity]

Periprosthetic fractures of hip and knee prostheses are gaining clinical significance due to the increasing numbers of of primary arthroplasties. Additionally, these fractures are often associated with poor bone quality or present in patients after multiple revision procedures and concomitant excessive bone defects precluding those patients to be adequately treated by conventional osteosynthesis. Revision implants provide a wide range of options for the treatment of these fractures in order to achieve good clinical results. In the acetabular region cavitary defects associated with periprosthetic fractures can be treated by the use of megacups. Extensive segmental defects and pelvic discontinuity necessitate the use of cups with additional iliac support or even customized implants. Proximal femoral fractures can usually be fixed with modular stems and diaphyseal anchorage. Periprosthetic knee joint fractures can be treated with revision implants with modular sleeves or augment-combinations allowing sufficient bridging of bony defects. Functional reconstruction or refixation of the extensor mechanism is of crucial importance.