Interlocking reconstruction-mode stem-sideplates preserve at-risk hips with short residual proximal femora

Utilization of 3D-Printed Customized Uncemented Stem Prostheses for Revision of Aseptic Loosening in the Distal Femoral Cemented Prostheses: Case Series and Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

Aseptic loosening (AL) is a common mechanical complication following reconstruction of the distal femoral cemented prosthesis (DFCP), often resulting in severe bone loss, which complicates prosthesis revision. 3D-printed personalized implants represent an emerging solution for the reconstruction of complex bone defects. This study aimed to investigate the early therapeutic effects of using a 3D-printed, customized, uncemented stem prosthesis for revising aseptic AL in DFCP.

METHODS

From June 2021 to December 2022, a retrospective review was conducted on six consecutive patients who underwent revision surgery due to AL of the DFCP with a 3D-printed customized uncemented stem prosthesis. The study included four male and two female patients, with an average age of 58 ± 11 (range: 46-75) years. All six patients had previously undergone limb salvage surgery using a cemented megaprosthesis after tumor resection. Preoperative imaging evaluation was performed for all patients, and the personalized design of the prostheses was achieved through 3D printing based on CT imaging data. Regular clinical and radiographic follow-up was conducted postoperatively, with the main outcome measures being oncological outcomes, prosthesis survival, osseointegration, complications, and lower limb function.

RESULTS

All patients successfully underwent surgery and were followed up for a mean duration of 30.33 ± 6.15 (range: 24-38) months. All patients were alive at the last follow-up, with no tumor recurrence or distant metastasis. No complications such as infection, loosening, or fracture of the prosthesis occurred. Osseointegration was satisfactory, with a mean MSTS score of 26 (range: 20-28) points.

CONCLUSION

3D-printed, customized, uncemented stem prosthesis exhibit immediate initial stability and reliable biocompatibility. Early clinical outcomes are satisfactory, making them an effective method for revision AL of DFCP.

Tandem Reconstruction of the Femoral Diaphysis Using an Intercalary Prosthesis and a Fibular Free Flap

BACKGROUND

Femoral diaphyseal reconstructions with metal prostheses have mediocre results because of high mechanical forces that result in eventual implant failure. Biological alternatives require prolonged restrictions on weight-bearing and have high rates of infection, nonunion, and fracture. A novel method of utilizing a vascularized fibula in combination with an intercalary prosthesis was developed to complement the immediate stability of the prosthesis with the long-term biological fixation of a vascularized fibular graft.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who underwent reconstruction of an oncological intercalary femoral defect using an intercalary prosthesis and an inline fibular free flap (FFF). They were compared with patients who underwent femoral reconstruction using an intercalary allograft and an FFF.

RESULTS

Femoral reconstruction with an intercalary metal prosthesis and an FFF was performed in 8 patients, and reconstruction with an allograft and an FFF was performed in 16 patients. The mean follow-up was 5.3 years and 8.5 years, respectively (p = 0.02). In the bioprosthetic group, radiographic union of the fibula occurred in 7 (88%) of 8 patients, whereas in the allograft group, 13 (81%) of 16 patients had allograft union (p = 1.00) and all 16 patients had fibular union (p = 0.33). The mean time to fibular union in the bioprosthetic group was 9.0 months, whereas in the allograft group, the mean time to allograft union was 15.3 months (p = 0.03) and the mean time to fibular union was 12.5 months (p = 0.42). Unrestricted weight-bearing occurred at a mean of 3.7 months in the prosthesis group and 16.5 months in the allograft group (p < 0.01). Complications were observed in 2 (25%) of 8 patients in the prosthesis group and in 13 (81%) of 16 patients in the allograft group (p = 0.02). Neither chemotherapy nor radiation affected fibular or allograft union rates. Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores did not differ significantly between the groups (mean, 26 versus 28; p = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Bioprosthetic intercalary femoral reconstruction with a metal prosthesis and an FFF resulted in earlier weight-bearing, a shorter time to union, fewer operations needed for union, and lower complication rates than reconstruction with an allograft and an FFF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Megaprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur with a short residual proximal femur following bone tumor resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To investigate the risk of postoperative function and complications associated with reconstruction methods in patients with short residual proximal femurs (< 12 cm) after resection of distal femoral bone tumors, we performed a systematic review of studies reporting postoperative function and complications in these patients.

METHODS

Of the 236 studies identified by systematic searches using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, eight were included (none were randomized controlled trials). In these studies, 106 (68.4%), 12 (7.7%), and 37 (23.9%) patients underwent reconstruction with custom-made megaprostheses with extracortical plates or cross-pins, allograft prosthetic composite (APC), and Compress^® compliant pre-stress (CPS) implants, respectively.

RESULTS

Aseptic loosening occurred slightly more frequently in the APC group than in the other reconstruction methods (APC group, 21%; custom-made megaprosthesis group, 0-17%; CPS implant group, 14%). No differences were noted in the frequencies of implant breakage, fractures, or infections between the three reconstruction methods. Mechanical survival, where endpoint was set as implant removal for any reason, was 80% at seven years in the APC group, 70-77% at 10 years in the custom-made megaprosthesis group, and 68% at nine years in the CPS implant group. Therefore, there appeared to be no difference among the three reconstruction methods with respect to mechanical survival.

CONCLUSIONS

During megaprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur with a short residual proximal femur after bone tumor resection, similar results were obtained using custom-made megaprostheses, APCs, and CPS implants.

Classification and reconstruction of femoral bone defect in the revision of aseptic loosening of distal femoral endoprostheses: a 10-year multicenter retrospective analysis

Objective

This study proposes a system for classifying the aseptic loosening of distal femoral endoprostheses and discusses reconstruction methods for revision surgery, based on different classification types.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who received revision surgery for aseptic loosening in distal femoral tumor endoprosthesis from January 2008 to December 2020 at 3 bone tumor treatment centers in China. Based on the patient imaging data, we proposed a classification system for the aseptic loosening of distal femoral endoprostheses and discussed its revision surgery strategy for various bone defects.

Results

A total of 31 patients were included in this study, including 21 males and 10 females aged 15–75 y (average: 44.3 y). First-revision surgery was performed on 24 patients, whereas second-revision surgery was conducted on 7 patients. The 31 patients were classified into different types based on the degree of aseptic loosening: Type I, 12 patients (38.7%); Type IIa, 7 patients (22.5%); Type IIb, 7 patients (22.5%); Type III, 4 patient (12.9%); and Type IV, 1 patient (3.2%). For type I, 11 patients underwent revisions with standard longer-stem prostheses (one with the original prosthesis), and one patient had the original prosthesis plus cortical allograft strut. For type II (a and b), 10 patients underwent revisions with original prosthesis or longer-stem prosthesis and 4 patients combined with cortical allograft strut. For type III, one patient underwent revision with a longer-stem prosthesis and the other 3 patients with a custom short-stem prosthesis. For type IV, only one patient underwent revision with a custom short-stem prosthesis.

Conclusions

Aseptic loosening of the distal femoral prosthesis can be divided into 4 types: type I, type II (a, b), type III and type IV. The reconstruction methods of our centers for different types of bone defects can offer some reference value in the revision of aseptic loosening.

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.