High complication and revision rates after total femoral replacement: a retrospective single center analysis of indication, function, and complication

Total femur replacement, indications for the procedure and its complications: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Total femur replacement (TFR) is a solution that allows orthopedic surgeons to address the most complicated cases in hip, femur, and knee reconstruction. Complete femur prostheses are used in both oncologic patients with femur tumors that require resection and in cases of complicated prosthetic failure with massive bone defects. TFR is an alternative to hip disarticulation that allows the patient to spare the limb and preserve its function. However, the indications for surgery vary and the procedure has been reported to present a high risk of serious complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. An electronic database was searched for articles reporting indications, complications, and primary diagnoses prior to TFR. We reviewed study type, number of patients, and complications reported in the study.

RESULTS

15 articles including 651 patients were analyzed. Primary diagnoses before TFR can be divided into two groups: oncological and non-oncological. In some articles, there is no clear demarcation between the indications for the surgery and the primary diagnosis prior to TFR. The most common primary diagnosis in oncological patients was osteosarcoma (48,3%) and in non-oncological patients it was osteoarthritis (42,2%). The most common indications for the procedure were oncological (50,8%), followed by fracture (17,1%) and loosening (8,9%). The most common categories of postoperative complications were infection (32,4%), soft tissue failure (13,9%), and dislocation (12,9%).

CONCLUSION

Surgeons must be aware of the high risks of complications related to the procedure and should qualify their patients after careful mutual consideration and with a personal approach to potential risks and an overall prognosis. All percussions should be made to avoid periprosthetic infection as main complication. After the surgery any findings indicating possible infection should be investigated to avoid implant failure. High risk of dislocation indicates that more constrained or dual-mobility cups should be considered.

Total femur replacement in revision arthroplasty for non-oncologic patients: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Revision total joint arthroplasty cases including those complex enough to require limb-salvage procedures are expected to significantly increase. Total femoral replacements represent a limb-preserving procedure with potential utility for these complicated cases. This review seeks to summarize the outcomes of total femoral replacements when used in the revision arthroplasty setting.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Wiley Cochrane Library: Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Thompson Reuters Web of Science: Citation Index on February 8, 2024 for studies describing any outcomes and complications of total femur replacements performed for revision arthroplasty. Functional outcomes and postoperative complications were subsequently summarized. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024509031). Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies.

RESULTS

Eleven of 4817 initially screened studies were included. Indications for total femur replacement largely consisted of periprosthetic infection, periprosthetic fracture, hardware loosening, or a combination thereof. Articles described variable benefit in function, pain, and ambulatory ability. Patients had improved hip and knee function, reduced pain levels, and preserved independent ambulatory ability, though patients largely still required assistive devices. Benefits were limited by the high risk of postoperative complications, especially infection and dislocation.

CONCLUSION

Total femur replacement is an option for limb-salvage surgery in complex revision arthroplasty cases but has high complication rates, particularly infection and dislocation. Advancements aimed at minimizing these complication rates including silver- and iodine-coated implants will be critical in establishing the viability of total femur replacements in this setting.

The Megaendoprosthesis in Revision Arthroplasty - a Cost-revenue Analysis in the aG-DRG System

Megaendoprosthesis offer a viable treatment in complex revision arthroplasty cases with good functional outcome. In the context of a neoplastic indication, the diagnosis-related group (DRG) I95A is usually assigned with a relative weight of 4.906 (2021). In contrast, in revision arthroplasty, the appropriate DRG is assigned, depending on the joint replacement. The additional costs compared to the invoiced DRG are to be compensated by agreeing on hospital-specific individual fees. These complex revision arthroplasties set high technical and operative demands and are mainly performed in specialised departments. We conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the use of the megaendoprosthesis in revision cases in a specialised orthopaedic clinic, as a single centre study. The question we sought to answer was: Is cost recovery possible in the modified German DRG system (aG-DRG)?A retrospective single centre analysis of treatment costs was performed. From 2018 to 2020, 113 patients treated with a megaendoprosthesis reconstruction in a referral centre due to extensive bone loss after aseptic or septic revision of a hip or knee prosthesis were included in the study. Relevant case-related cost drivers of the aG-DRG matrix (including staff and material costs of the operating theatre area and the ward) were taken into account. The actual costs were determined according to the specifications of the calculation manual published by the German institute for the remuneration system in hospitals (InEK). For each case, the contribution margin was calculated by relating the hospital's internal costs to the corresponding cost pool of the aG-DRG matrix.According to the DRG system 2021, 17 different DRGs were used for billing - in 70% based on a patient clinical complexity level (PCCL) ≥ 4. Compared with the InEK calculation, there is a deficit of -2,901 € per case in the examined parameters. The costs of physicians show a shortfall in both the operating theatre and on the ward. Implant costs, which were supposed to be compensated by hospital-specific additional charges, show a hospital-specific shortage of -2,181 €. When analysing the risk factors for cost recovery, only these showed a significant difference.Implantation of the megaendoprosthesis in revision arthroplasty is often the last option to preserve limb function. At present, despite a high degree of specialisation and process optimisation, this treatment cannot be provided cost-effectively even in tertiary care. The politically desired specialised department structure requires sufficient reimbursement for complex cases. The economic outcome of each treatment case is often unpredictable, however the surgeon is confronted with these cases and is expected to treat them. The high standard deviation indicates large differences in the cost/revenue situation of each individual case. Our results show for the first time a realistic cost analysis for megaprosthesis in revision arthroplasty and underline the importance of an adequate hospital-specific charge, individually agreed by the funding units. The calculation should include not only the implant costs, but also the increased staff costs (increased, complex planning effort, quality management, surgery time, etc.).

Comparative Outcomes and Failure Rates of Total Femur Replacement in Oncologic and Nononcologic Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total femur replacement (TFR) has become increasingly significant as a salvage procedure for both oncologic reconstruction and complex nononcologic conditions such as revision arthroplasty. Despite its effectiveness in limb salvage, TFR is associated with high complication and failure rates, which vary depending on the underlying indication.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases was conducted, focusing on studies that reported outcomes of TFR in oncologic and nononcologic cases. Primary outcomes included failure mode and rates according to the Henderson classification, functional outcomes scores, and mobility status. Data were analyzed using random-effects models and generalized linear mixed models.

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies involving 1,002 patients were included. The majority of TFRs were performed for oncologic reasons (63.7%). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 66%, with a limb salvage rate of 89%. The meta-analysis revealed a combined failure rate of 34%. For type 4 failures (infection), nononcologic patients exhibited a significantly higher rate at 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12%-26%, I2 = 46%, p < 0.01) compared with 8% in oncologic patients (95% CI, 6%-12%, I2 = 0%). Regarding combined types 1 to 4 failures, oncologic patients had a rate of 20% (95% CI, 25%-52%, I2 = 60%), whereas nononcologic patients faced a higher rate of 37% (95% CI, 12%-26%, I2 = 63%) (p < 0.05), indicating a significant difference. There were no significant differences in the MSTS score. In addition, there were no notable differences when comparing failure modes 1, 2, and 3 independently. Mobility analysis showed that approximately 70% of patients required walking aids after surgery.

CONCLUSION

TFR offers a valuable limb salvage option in both oncologic and nononcologic scenarios, despite its high failure rates. Although functional outcomes were similar between groups, the higher failure rate in nononcologic cases and the poor overall quality of evidence warrant further comprehensive assessments into predictors of outcomes to optimize results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Postoperative Outcomes of Total Femur Replacement in Oncologic and Nononcologic Patients: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Total femur replacement (TFR) is used for primary reconstruction after extensive tumor resection or as a revision surgery due to prosthetic failure. Studies on TFR rates of failure and functional outcomes are scarce. The purpose of our study was to compare the modes of failure, amputation rates, and functional outcomes after TFR between oncologic and nononcologic patients.

METHODS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were for this manuscript. Our study was registered on PROSPERO (413582). Quality assessment of all studies was performed using Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. Endoprosthesis failure was assessed using the Henderson classification and functional outcomes using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score. Weighted means and standard deviations were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall failure rate was similar between groups. Henderson type 4 failures were more common within the nononcologic group, while the others were more frequently found in the oncologic group. Overall amputation rate was higher in the oncologic group mainly due to type 5 failure. Amputations occurred mainly after type 4 and type 5 failures. Functional outcome was better within the oncologic group (70.5 versus 61.7, respectively; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Total femoral replacement in the oncologic and nononcologic group is associated with a high rate of failure (31% and 32.5%, respectively). Overall amputation rate was higher in the oncologic group mainly due to type 5 failure. Functional outcome was better within the oncologic group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Long-term outcomes of non-invasive expandable endoprostheses for primary malignant tumors around the knee in skeletally-immature patients

INTRODUCTION

Expandable endoprostheses are used to restore limb function and compensate for the sacrifice physis involved in carcinologic resection. Long-term outcomes of the last generation of knee "non-invasive" expandable endoprostheses are required. Objectives were to report on oncologic results of bone sarcoma resection around the knee with expandable endoprosthesis reconstruction and to compare the surgical outcomes of the "non-invasive" expandable endoprostheses used in our department.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective study that included all children with bone sarcoma around the knee that underwent tumor resection reconstructed with non-invasive expandable prosthesis. Phenix-Repiphysis was used from 1994 to 2008 followed by Stanmore JTS non-invasive from 2008 to 2016. Survival and complications were recorded. Functional outcomes included Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, knee range of motion, lower limb discrepancy (LLD).

RESULTS

Forty children (Sex Ratio = 1) aged a mean 8.8 years (range, 5.6-13.8) at surgery were included in the study. There were 36 osteosarcoma and 4 Ewing sarcoma that involved 33 distal femur and 7 proximal tibia. Cohort (n = 40) consisted of 28 Phenix-Repiphysis and 12 Stanmore with a mean follow-up of 9.8 ± 5.8 years and 6.1 ± 3.1 years, respectively. Postoperative infection rate was 7.5% in the cohort (3 Repiphysis). Functional results were significantly better in the Stanmore group with a mean MSTS of 87.6 ± 5.4% and knee flexion of 112 ± 38°. At last follow-up, implant survival was 100% in Stanmore group, whereas all living Phenix-Repiphysis were explanted. Mechanical failure was the primary cause for revision of Phenix-Repiphysis. Limb length equality was noted in 79% patients with Phenix-Repiphysis and 84% with Stanmore at last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Chemotherapy and limb-salvage surgery yield good oncologic outcomes. Expandable endoprostheses are effective in maintaining satisfactory function and lower limb equality. With improvements made in the last generation of "non-invasive" prostheses, implants' survival has been substantially lengthened.

Clinical Outcome After Replacement of Distal Femur/Proximal Tibia in a Heterogeneous Patient Cohort: Function Following Tumour, Trauma, and Loosening

BACKGROUND

Distal femur and proximal tibia replacements as limb-salvage procedures with good outcome parameters for patients with tumours have been broadly described. However, the overall midterm outcome in a mixed, heterogeneous patient collective is still unclear.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 59 consecutive patients (33 for primary and 26 for revision surgery) between 1998 and 2017. Indication for implantation was tumour (n=16), periprosthetic fracture (n=14), traumatic fracture (n=14), infection (n=10), aseptic loosening (n=3), and pathological fracture (n=2). The mean follow-up duration was 3 years. Clinical functions were evaluated by Toronto Extremity Salvage Score and Knee Society Score. Knee extension and flexion force were measured.

RESULTS

The overall survival rate of arthroplasties was 59% (n=35). Major complications were observed in 36 (61%) patients. During the follow-up period, 14 (24%) patients died. We recorded periprosthetic joint infection in 21 (36%) patients, recurrence of tumour in two (3%), and aseptic implant failure in three (5%). The mean Toronto Extremity Salvage Score was 66±33, and the mean Knee Society Score was 49±30. The mean extension force on the operated side was significantly reduced at 60° and 180° compared to the healthy side (p=0.0151 and p=0.0411, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Distal femur and proximal tibia replacements showed limited clinical function in a heterogeneous patient collective. Indication for implantation should be considered carefully.

Revision of a Fractured Titanium Modular Revision Hip Stem Without Removal of the Well-Fixed Part of the Stem: A New Approach Using a Cemented Tube

Component fracture is a rare cause for revision in total hip arthroplasty. For a fractured well-fixed long femoral stem, the options are limited. We sought to develop a technique to address this problem with lower morbidity. A newly developed cemented tube was constructed and cemented onto a fractured Revitan revision hip femoral stem to retain the distal well-fixed component. At the 2-year follow-up, the Harris Hip Score, pain level, and radiographic images were analyzed. At the 2-year follow-up, no radiological signs of loosening or failure could be observed. The patient's preoperative Harris Hip Score improved from 42.8 to 97 points. The pain level improved from 7/10 to 0/10. Our case report depicts excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes at 2-year follow-up by a newly developed cemented tube technique. This technique is a potential new option for revision of fractured well-fixed diaphyseal stems without major bone loss. Our successful results suggest this technique is worthy of consideration and further study.