Megaprosthesis Reconstruction of the Proximal Femur following Bone Tumour Resection: When Do We Need the Cup?

Similar complications, implant survival, and function following modular prosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions of the proximal femur for primary bone tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

There is a lack of consensus regarding the best type of reconstruction of the proximal femur following bone tumor resection. The objective of this study was to analyze the complication risks, implant survival, and functional outcomes following modular prosthesis (MP) and allograft-prosthesis composite (APC) reconstruction of the proximal femur after primary bone tumor resections.

METHODS

We performed a search in the PubMed and Scopus libraries, obtaining 1 843 studies. We included studies reporting functional outcomes, complications, and implant survival of proximal femur reconstruction with MP or APC following primary bone tumor resection with a 2-year minimum follow-up. We excluded studies analyzing metastatic patients or studies with pooled data in which it was impossible to separate the data of patients with primary bone tumors from those with bone metastases.

RESULTS

We analyzed 18 studies (483 patients) reporting on 234 (48%) patients with MP reconstruction and 249 (52%) patients with APC reconstruction. The risk of complications was similar in patients with MP reconstruction (29%; 95% CI [0.11; 0.47]) and APC reconstruction (36%; 95% CI [0.24; 0.47]) (p = 0.48). Implant survival following MP reconstruction ranged from 81 to 86% at 5 years, 75 to 86% at 10 years, and 82% at 15 years. Implant survival following APC reconstruction ranged from 86 to 100% at 5 years and 86% at 10 years, and 86% at 15 years. Functional outcomes following MP reconstruction and APC reconstruction ranged from 24.0 to 28.3 and from 21.9 to 27.8, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients with primary bone tumor of the proximal femur who underwent MP or APC reconstruction seem to have similar complication risks, implant survival, and functional outcomes.

Proximal Femur Megaprostheses in Orthopedic Oncology: Evaluation of a Standardized Post-operative Rehabilitation Protocol

Background

Reconstructions of the proximal femur after massive resections represent one of the main challenges in orthopedic oncology. Among the possible treatments, megaprostheses represent one of the most used and reliable reconstructive approaches. Although literature about their outcomes has flourished through the last decades, a consensus rehabilitative treatment is still far from being established.

Materials and methods

We evaluated the functional results of all our oncologic cases treated between 2016 and 2022 that could follow our standardized post-operative rehabilitative approach, consisting in progressive hip mobilization and early weight-bearing.

Results

Twenty-two cases were included in our study. On average, their hospitalization lasted 15.1 days. The seated position was achieved on average within 3.7 days after surgery, the standing position reached 5.4 after surgery, while assisted deambulation was started 6.4 days after surgery. After a mean post-operative follow-up of 44.0 months, our patients' mean MSTS score was 23.2 (10-30). Our data suggested a statistically significant inverse linear correlation between post-operative functionality and patients' age, resection length, and the start of deambulation.

Conclusions

A correct rehabilitation, focused on early mobilization and progressive weight-bearing, is crucial to maximize patients' post-operative functional outcomes.

Successful megaprosthesis in a nearly amputated lower extremity after crush injury: A case report and literature review

Crush injury is one of the most challenging decisions for a surgeon to decide whether to proceed with an amputation or salvage a limb. We presented a 24-year-old man who complained of having suffered a crushed thigh 12 h before admission to the hospital. The patient was driving a truck and hit the iron bridge barrier, which penetrated his left thigh. The patient's left foot was cold, pallid, and pulseless, with a MESS score of 11. The femur x-ray showed a displaced fracture of the left femur associated with a 15 cm bone defect. The patient was diagnosed with a crush injury on the left femur with vascular compromise. We performed a proximal femoral megaprosthesis for a crush injury on the lower extremity, After the sixth year's follow-up, it shows a good outcome and increased quality of life for this patient. In addition, there was an improvement in the Harris Hip Score and EQ5D score. Megaprosthesis used to treat a crush injury revealed good functional outcomes despite the MESS score of 11. A multi-professional approach to the patient is essential for decision-making regarding limb salvage rather than the use of a score.

Comparative Study of Proximal Femur Bone Tumor Patients Undergoing Hemiarthroplasty versus Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

Hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty are routinely performed procedures. A comparison of these procedures in tumor patients can be performed based on complications and functional outcomes. To weigh the advantages and disadvantages of both procedures, a comparative study is indeed required to decide which procedure is more beneficial for primary bone tumor patients. The outcomes of proximal femur tumor-resected patients were collected from research reports from PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar until 30 December 2022. Differences between these two operative procedures in primary bone tumors patients were analyzed based on dislocation, infection, local recurrence, MSTS, and HHS. Six articles were included according to the selection criteria with a total of 360 patients. Our results showed that there was a significant difference in our primary outcome as hemiarthroplasty participants encountered less dislocation than those with total hip arthroplasty. Moreover, the secondary outcomes of our study were similar. Proximal femur bone tumors, when resected, tend to produce more complications and decrease functional ability due to extensive tumor extension and soft tissue involvement. The lower dislocation rate in hemiarthroplasty participants emphasizes the importance of preserving the acetabular head in hemiarthroplasty as a key to preventing dislocation.

Outcomes After Abductor Reattachment to Proximal Femur Endoprosthesis After Tumor Resection

INTRODUCTION

Resection of the proximal femur raises several challenges including restoration of the abductor mechanism. Few evaluated the outcomes of different techniques of abductor fixation to the proximal femur endoprosthesis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent proximal femoral arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of 12 months was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) those with preserved greater trochanter (GT) reattached to the implant and (2) those with direct abductor muscle reattachment. Both groups were compared for surgical and functional outcomes. Group 1 patients were subdivided into those who received GT reinsertion using grip and cables and those reattached using sutures.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were included with a mean follow-up of 49 months. There were 22 patients with reinserted GT and 31 patients with soft-tissue repair. The endoprosthesis revision rate was comparable between groups (P = 0.27); however, the incidence of dislocations was higher in group 2 (0/22 versus 6/31; P = 0.035). Trendelenburg gait (77% versus 74%), use of walking aids (68% versus 81%), and abductor muscle strength were comparable between both groups (P > 0.05). In group 1, 15 patients had GT reinsertion with grip and cables. Of those, five patients (33%) had cable rupture within 13 months of follow-up. GT displacement reached 12 mm at 12 months of follow-up in patients with grip and cables compared with 26 mm in patients with GT suture reinsertion (P < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

Although GT preservation did not improve functional outcomes, it was associated with a lower dislocation rate despite frequent cable failure. Less displacement was observed when GT reattachment used grip and cables.