Outcomes of Cemented Distal Femoral Replacement Using "Line to Line" Technique With All-Polyethylene Tibial Implant for Tumors

Larger stem to bone diameter ratio predicts lower cemented endoprosthesis failure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

With continued advances in treatment options, patients with endoprosthetic reconstruction are living longer and consequently relying upon their devices for a longer duration. Major causes of endoprosthesis failure include aseptic loosening and mechanical failure. In the setting of tumor resection, loss of bone stock and use of radiation therapy increase the risk for these complications. As such, considerations of remaining native bone and stem length and diameter may be increasingly important. We asked the following questions: (1) What was the overall rate of endoprosthesis failure at a minimum of 5-year follow-up? (2) Does resection length increase implant failure rates? (3) Does implant size and its ratio to cortical width of bone alter implant failure rates?

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patient outcomes at a single institution between the years of 1999-2022 who underwent cemented endoprosthetic reconstruction at the hip or knee and identified 150 patients. Of these 150, 55 had a follow-up of greater than 5 years and were used for analysis. Radiographs of these patients at time of surgery were assessed and measured for resection length, bone diameter, stem diameter, and remaining bone length. Resection percentage, and stem to bone diameter ratios were then calculated and their relationship to endoprosthesis failure were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients in this cohort had a mean age of 55.8, and mean follow-up of 59.96 months. There were 78 distal femoral replacements (52%), 16 proximal femoral replacements (10.7%), and 56 proximal tibial replacements (37.3%). There were five patients who experienced aseptic loosening and six patients who experienced mechanical failure. Patients with implant failure had a smaller mean stem to bone diameter (36% vs. 44%; p = 0.002). A stem to bone diameter of 40% appeared to be a breaking point between success and failure in this series, with 90% of patients with implant failure having a stem: bone ratio less than 40%. Stem to bone ratio less than 40% increased risk for failure versus stems that were at least 40% the diameter of bone (6/19 [31.6%] vs. 0/36 [0%]; odds ratio 0.68; p < 0.001). Resection length did not appear to have an impact on the rates of aseptic loosening and mechanical failure in this series.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this series suggests a benefit to using stems with a larger diameter when implanting cemented endoprostheses at the hip or knee. Stems which were less than 40% the diameter of bone were substantially more likely to undergo implant failure.

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.

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.

Distal femoral replacement - Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature

Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique.