Megaprostheses in the management of trauma of the knee

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Range of Motion Following Knee Arthroplasty Using a Megaprosthesis in Non-Oncological Patients: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to determine outcomes following megaprostheses in non-oncological indications for knee arthroplasty, including range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcome measures of function, pain, and quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane via Ovid and PubMed between January 2003 and June 2023 was conducted. Studies reporting function, pain, ROM, and/or QoL in non-oncological patients who have received knee megaprostheses were included. Studies with sample sizes (n ≤ 5) were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black Quality Checklist for Health Care Intervention Studies. Central tendency measures (mean or median) were reported at each time point, and dispersion measures were extracted and reported whenever data were available.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies (involving 1,294 megaprostheses) were included. Of which, 14 of 30 studies reviewed patients who had mixed indications; 14 of 30 looked at fracture only; 1 of 30 focused on distal femur nonunion; and 1 of 30 focused on patients who had periprosthetic infections. The average patient follow-up time was 40.1 months (range, 1.0 to 93.5). Most studies presented a high risk of bias (27 of 30), while a few (3 of 30) presented a low risk of bias. Improvements from preoperative baseline were observed in 85.7% of studies that reported baseline and follow-up data for function (12 of 14), 100.0% pain (4 of 4), 90.9% ROM (10 of 11), and 66.6% QoL (2 of 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Favorable function, pain, ROM, and QoL outcomes following knee megaprostheses in non-oncological patients were observed. Heterogeneity in outcome measures and follow-up periods prevented the pooling of data. Future comparative studies are warranted to enhance the body of evidence relating to knee megaprostheses in non-oncological patients.

Current concepts review. Management of proximal tibial fractures

The management of proximal tibial fractures has evolved significantly in recent years. While the main goals of treatment - stability, restoration of the mechanical axis, and smooth articular surfaces - remain the same, methods have advanced substantially. In diagnostics, technical progress in CT and MR imaging has led to a better three-dimensional understanding of the injury. Newly developed classification systems such as the three-column concept of Luo et al. and the 10-segment concept of Krause et al. take this into account. Accordingly, there is a trend towards tailored approaches for particular fracture localizations. Parallel to this development, there is increasing evidence of the advantages of arthroscopically assisted surgical procedures. This Current Concepts article reviews classifications, diagnostics, treatment options as well as complications in fractures of the proximal tibia.

Distal femoral replacement or internal fixation for management of periprosthetic distal femur fractures: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The number of periprosthetic fractures above a total knee arthroplasty continues to increase. These fractures are associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Techniques for addressing these fractures include open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and revision arthroplasty, including distal femoral replacement (DFR). The primary aim of this review is to compare mortality and reoperation rates between ORIF and DFR when used to treat periprosthetic distal femur fractures.

METHODS

A systematic review including MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases was completed from inception to April 10, 2021. Studies including a comparator cohort were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were identified for inclusion, of which, five had sufficient homogeneity for inclusion in a meta-analysis. 30-day and 2-year mortality was 4.1% and 14.6% in the DFR group. There was no statistically significant difference between ORIF and DFR (log Odds-Ratio (OR) = -0.14, 95 %CI: -0.77 to 0.50). The reoperation rate in the DFR group was 9.3% versus 14.8% for ORIF, with no difference between groups (log OR = 0.10, 95 %CI: -0.59 to 0.79). There was no difference in rates of deep infection (log OR = 0.22, 95 %CI: -0.83 to 1.28). Direct comparison of functional outcomes was not possible, though did not appear significant.

CONCLUSION

DFR in the setting of periprosthetic distal femur fractures is equivalent to ORIF with respect to mortality and reoperation rate and thus a safe and reliable treatment strategy. DFR may be more reliable in complex fracture patterns where the ability to obtain adequate fixation is difficult.

The Performances of Conventional Titanium and Silver-Coated Megaprostheses in Non-oncological and Post-oncological Patients: An Analysis of Infection Failures in 142 Patients

BACKGROUND

Megaprostheses are one of the preferred choices of reconstruction after tumor resection. Periprosthetic joint infections are one of the most serious complications of joint prostheses surgeries. In this study, our aim was to analyze the efficacy of silver-coated megaprostheses in reducing the risk of prosthesis-related infection.

METHODS

One hundred forty-two patients who had undergone implantation of a mega-endoprosthesis for non-neoplastic or post-neoplastic conditions were included in this retrospective study. The end-point of the survival analysis was the prosthesis failure due to infection.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients had undergone implantation of a silver-coated megaprosthesis and 104 patients a megaprosthesis without silver coating. The survival analysis showed an overall infection-free survival rate of 82.3% at five years and 61.9% at 10 years. Silver-coated prostheses had an HR of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.26-2.05; P=0.54).

CONCLUSION

Implantation of a silver-coated mega-prosthesis in non-oncological patients did not significantly reduce the risk of prosthesis-related infection.

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in non-oncological femoral megaprosthesis infections: minimum 5 year follow-up

PURPOSE

Megaprostheses are increasingly utilised outside of the oncological setting, and remain at significant risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Debridement, antibiotic, and implant retention (DAIR) is an established treatment for PJI, however its use in non-oncological patients with femoral megaprostheses has not been widely reported. There are significant differences in patient physiology, treatment goals, and associated risks between these patient cohorts.

METHODS

We identified 14 patients who underwent DAIR for a PJI of their femoral megaprostheses, between 2000 and 2014, whom had their index procedure secondary to non-oncological indications. Patients were managed as part of a multidisciplinary team, with our standardised surgical technique including exchange of all mobile parts, and subsequent antibiotic therapy for a minimum of 3 months. Patients were followed up for a minimum of 5 years.

RESULTS

Patients included six proximal femoral replacements, five distal femoral replacements, and three total femoral replacements. No patients were lost to follow-up. There were six males and eight females, with a mean age of 67.2 years, and mean ASA of 2.3. Nine patients (64.3%) successfully cleared their infection following DAIR at a minimum of 5 year follow-up. Five patients (35.7%) required further revision surgery, with four patients cleared of infection. No patients who underwent DAIR alone suffered complications as a result of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DAIR in these complex patients can lead to successful outcomes, but the risk of further revision remains high. The success rate (64.3%) remains on par with other studies evaluating DAIR in megaprostheses and in primary arthroplasty. This study indicates judicious use of DAIR can be an appropriate part of the treatment algorithm.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Very Distal Femoral Periprosthetic Fractures: Replacement Versus Fixation: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize all-cause reoperations and complications data as well as secondary clinical and functional outcomes, after the management of very distal femur periprosthetic fractures (vDFPFs) in a geriatric patient population with either a distal femoral locking plate (DFLP) or distal femoral replacement (DFR).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for English language articles from inception to March 16, 2020, in accordance to the PRISMA guidelines.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting the management of vDFPFs in adults older than 65 years with either a DFLP or DFR were included. To ensure this review solely focused on very distal femoral periprosthetic fractures, only fractures of the following classifications were included: (1) Lewis and Rorabeck type II or III, (2) Su and Associates' Classification of Supracondylar Fractures of the Distal Femur type III, (3) Backstein et al type F2, and/or (4) Kim et al type II or III.

DATA EXTRACTION

Three reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. Study validity was assessed using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS), a quality assessment tool for nonrandomized controlled studies in surgery.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-five studies with 649 vDFPFs were included for analysis. There were 440 knees in the DFLP group (mean age range: 65.9-88.3 years) and 209 knees in the DFR group (mean age range: 71.0-84.8 years). Because of the literature's heterogeneity, the data were qualitatively synthesized.

CONCLUSIONS

vDFPFs in the elderly treated with DFR underwent fewer reoperations relative to DFLP (0%-45% vs. 0%-77%, respectively). Time to weight-bearing was observably shorter in DFR studies relative to DFLP studies. Functional outcomes and postoperative range of motion indicated a trend for DFLP knees to outperform DFR knees. Future research should include prospective studies and cost-effectiveness evaluations to better understand the utility of DFR for these fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Distal femoral replacement - Does length matter? Mid-term results for distal femoral replacements

BACKGROUND

Review of mid-term results (five years) for tumour and revision arthroplasty surgery using the Stanmore METS® distal femoral replacement.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively for 90 patients for procedures performed between 2002 and 2019. Kaplan-Meier survivorship for implant was estimated at five years post-op. Endpoints for survivorship analysis included revision for any cause and as per Henderson classification. Log rank test was used to compare implant survival for different categorical variables. Musculo-Skeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) score was used to estimate function.

RESULTS

Overall implant survival at five years was 76% (95% CI 66-86). Implants with a short body (<= 45 mm) had significantly better implant survival [87% (95% CI 78-99)] compared to those with larger bodies [63% (95% CI 48-82)] (logrank test, p = 0.031). There was no significant difference in implant survival for tumour and revision arthroplasty patients (logrank test, p = 0.61). Mean MSTS scores (median follow-up = 3.5 years) for tumour and revision arthroplasty patient were 71% and 63% respectively (Wilcoxon rank test, p < 0.05). Higher total number of surgeries was a significant predictor of patient mortality [HR = 0.7 (95% CI 0.49-0.99)]. Longer bodies were a significant predictor of implant failure [HR = 3.2 (95% CI 1.05-10.53), p < 0.05].

CONCLUSION

Overall outcome of Stanmore METS® distal femoral replacement at five years following tumour and revision arthroplasty reconstruction is comparable to the other implants.

Bilateral distal femoral endoprosthesis for trauma

In this paper, we describe the outcome of bilateral distal femoral endoprosthesis for the management of acute severe trauma. We also review the literature to ascertain the published functional results of distal femoral endoprosthesis for acute trauma of native knees. In severely comminuted intra-articular fractures, such as those our patient sustained, reconstruction is not always possible, and predictable outcomes can rarely be assured with conviction. Endoprosthesis is an established treatment modality for replacement after resection in limb salvage surgery. In this regard, there is a limited but vital role that endoprosthesis can play in acute complex trauma. We demonstrate a good short-term outcome when bilateral endoprostheses are utilised for complex distal femur trauma.

Management of infected extremity endoprostheses: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Endoprosthetic reconstructions have become increasingly common in the setting of significant bone loss. Indications include revision arthroplasty, trauma, and reconstruction in the setting of primary malignancies or bony metastases. Although the use of endoprostheses has several advantages, they carry a high risk of infection. The purpose of this review is to determine the success rates of surgical management of infected endoprostheses.

METHODS

The authors searched databases for relevant studies and screened in duplicate. Data extracted included overall infection rate, timing of infection, follow-up, isolated pathogen and operative treatment strategy, and subsequent failure rate. The overall quality of the evidence with the Methodological Index for non-randomized studies criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies and 647 patients met the inclusion criteria. 400 patients had operative management and reported outcomes. Failure rates of patients undergoing debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) were 55.1%. Failure rates of patients who underwent one-stage revision were 45.5%. Failure rates of patients undergoing two-stage revision were 27.3%. Failure occurred at 31.4 months (range, 0-228) postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of periprosthetic joint infection remain high in endoprosthetic reconstructions. Although DAIR procedures were found to have a low success rate, they remain a reasonable option in acute infections given the morbidity of staged revisions. There is a lack of comparative data in the current literature and the heterogeneity and low level of evidence does not allow for between group comparisons of results.

A modified technique of mega prosthesis revision on non-neoplastic patient: Case report

Introduction

Mega prosthesis is mainly used for the treatment of the oncologic patient whose limb underwent salvage surgery that caused the limb to lose significant bone or soft tissue. In recent years, mega prosthesis can also be used to treat non-oncologic patients.

Presentation of case

We presented a case of a 40-year-old male with chief complain of pain on the right knee 5 months before admission. Four years previously, the patient sustained motor vehicle accident that fractured his head of femur dan distal femur. He underwent 2-staged surgery for his femoral head and distal femur. However, he presented a year later with signs of non-union and finally underwent mega prosthesis surgery on his distal femur. During his follow up, he experienced a fracture on his prosthesis 3 years later and was referred to our institution. Physical examination shows deformity and slight varus on the right knee, and limited range of motion. The patient then underwent implant revisions.

Discussion

After 12 months of post revision surgery follow-up, the patient was able to walk independently. Our patient has not had any sign or episode of failure after the follow up for 12 months. According to literature, the incidence of failure is mostly at 48-72 months post implantation.

Conclusion

The problem for this patient maybe caused by the mechanical fatigue of the implant due to stress addressed to the implant. Our current technique of revisions procedure hopefully will enhance the power of the mega prosthesis for further usage.

Humeral head necrosis associated to shaft non-union with massive bone loss: a case report

Humeral non-union is a rare complication in shaft fractures, as well as humeral head necrosis is a possible complication in fracture involving the proximal third especially in four-part fractures. The presence of head osteonecrosis and diaphyseal non-union in the same arm represents a formidable challenge for an orthopaedic surgeon. We could not find any similar report in the literature dealing with this issue thus far. We present a case of a 65 years old woman referred to our hospital being affected by an atrophic humeral diaphyseal non-union with a massive bone loss (>10cm) associated to a humeral head osteonecrosis following a previous surgical procedures with a clear loosening of the hardware. At our institution,she was treated with hardware removal and insertion of a diaphyseal antibiotic spacer with Gentamycin for 2 months suspecting an active septic process at the union site despite negative cultural exams. Finally, she was treated with a cemented modular humeral megaprosthesis. At 20 months follow up, the patient, despite a reduced shoulder range of motion, referred to a pain-free recovery to an almost normal lifestyle, including car driving with no major disturbances. This case suggests that, in extreme selected cases following several failed treatments, megaprosthesis can represent a viable solution, especially in huge bone loss associated to joint degeneration, to ensure an acceptable return to a normal lifestyle.

Hinged total knee arthroplasty for fracture cases: Retrospective study of 52 patients with a mean follow-up of 5 years

INTRODUCTION

Hinged total knee arthroplasty (hTKA) is one of the treatment options available for complex fractures around an intact knee or an existing implant. The primary objective of this multicenter study was to evaluate the medium-term outcomes of hTKA for fractures. The secondary objective was to analyze the complications and risk factors based on fracture type, predisposition and time to surgery. We hypothesized that outcomes would be satisfactory, despite the context, and comparable to published data although impacted by significant mortality and morbidity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Within the framework of a symposium organized by the French Society of Orthopedic and Traumatology Surgery (SOFCOT), 52 patients from 11 hospitals were included retrospectively. All had undergone hTKA following a fracture event: recent fracture, postoperative course after a complex epiphyseal fracture on an intact knee, or periprosthetic fracture. Clinical outcomes (demographics, IKS score, Parker score, Devane score, time to surgery) and radiographic outcomes, along with complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 52 patients included, 3 were lost to follow-up and 1 died early on. Thus, 48 patients with a mean age of 72 years (range, 31-95) were available for analysis at a mean follow-up of 59 months (range, 3-162). Forty of these patients (78%) had suffered a fracture to an intact knee and 12 (22%) had suffered a periprosthetic fracture. Of the 52 initial patients, 21 (40%) had early complications with 7 patients (19%) requiring surgical revision (5 surgical site infections, 1 extensor mechanism tear, 1 patellar dislocation). Sixteen patients (31%) developed late complications an average of 57 months after the hTKA implantation. All required surgical revision. There were 8 implant infections (15%), 3 cases of stiffness (6%), 2 extensor mechanism tears (4%) and 3 cases of loosening (6%). At a mean follow-up of 59 months, there was a 24-point improvement on the IKS pain scale (p=0.032). The postoperative activity level was unchanged in the patients who did not suffer a complication. The mortality rate was high (7/48; 15%).

CONCLUSION

Our hypothesis was confirmed since the outcomes were satisfactory, but mortality and morbidity were high. Performing hTKA remains an option in the post-fracture context, although surgeons must carefully consider the indications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective study.

Megaprosthesis versus Allograft Prosthesis Composite for massive skeletal defects

Massive skeletal defects are encountered in the setting of tumors necessitating excision, failed total hip arthroplasty with periprosthetic bone loss, periprosthetic fracture, complex trauma, multiple failed osteosynthesis and infection. Reconstruction of the segmental defects poses a tremendous challenge to the orthopaedic surgeons. The goal of osseous reconstruction of these defects is to restore the bone length and function. Currently the most commonly employed methods for reconstruction are either a megaprosthesis or an Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC). Megaprosthesis, initially created for the treatment in neoplastic pathologies are being used for the non-neoplastic pathologies as well. The longevity of these implants is an issue as majority of the patients receiving them are the survivors of oncologic issue or elderly population, both in which the life expectancy is limited. However, the early complications like instability, infection, prosthetic breakage and fixation failure have been extensively reported in several literatures. Moreover, the megaprostheses are non-biological options preventing secure fixation of the soft tissue around the implant. The Allograft Prosthesis Composites were introduced to overcome the complications of megaprosthesis. APC is made of a revision-type prosthesis cemented into the skeletal allograft to which the remaining soft tissue sleeve can be biologically fixed. APCs are preferred in young and low risk patients. Though the incidence of instability is relatively low with the composites as compared to the megaprosthesis, apart from infection, the newer complications pertaining to APCs are inevitable that includes non-union, allograft resorption, periprosthetic fracture and potential risk of disease transmission. The current review aims to give an overview on the treatment outcomes, complications and survival of both the megaprostheses and APCs at different anatomic sites in both the upper and lower limbs.