Composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty can provide good function and quality of life in cases of malignant tumour of the proximal humerus

Complications and functional outcomes after reconstruction of the proximal humerus with allograft-prosthetic composite: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Allograft prosthetic composite (APC) reconstruction is performed after resection of proximal humerus tumors or failure of arthroplasty implants. There is limited literature on the postoperative outcomes of this technique. We sought to assess implant survival, failure rates, and postoperative functional outcomes after APC reconstruction of the proximal humerus.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed and Embase databases was conducted. The study was registered on PROSPERO (ID: 448,663). The Strengthening of the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist was used for quality assessment. Implant failure was determined using the Henderson classification for biological reconstruction. Functional outcome was primarily assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score at last follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies with a total of 488 patients were included. Mean follow-up in reporting studies ranged from 2.5 to 10 years. Five-year revision-free survival for implants ranged from 41% to 92%. Overall implant failure rate ranged from 9% to 54%, and reoperation rate ranged from 0% to 55%. Graft host nonunion (type 2) was the most common mode of failure, with rates ranging from 0% to 75%. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores at last follow-up ranged from 57% to 90% across studies. A trend towards better functional outcomes was seen in patients having an APC with a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) compared with those with hemiarthroplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

APCs show promise in proximal shoulder reconstruction, with heterogeneous functional outcomes that are noninferior to other reconstruction techniques. Graft host nonunion is a common mode of failure and remains a concern in this type of prosthesis. Future studies should compare rTSA-APCs and rTSA endoprostheses while controlling for potential confounders.

Design and validation of a novel 3D-printed glenohumeral fusion prosthesis for the reconstruction of proximal humerus bone defects: a biomechanical study

Background

All available methods for reconstruction after proximal humerus tumor resection have disadvantages, and the optimal reconstruction method remains uncertain. This study aimed to design a novel 3D-printed glenohumeral fusion prosthesis and verify its feasibility and safety using biomechanical methods.

Methods

We verified the feasibility and safety of the 3D-printed glenohumeral fusion prosthesis by finite element analysis and biomechanical experimentation. In the finite element analysis, three reconstruction methods were used, and displacement and von Mises stress were observed; on this basis, in the biomechanical experiment, models constructed with sawbones were classified into two groups. The force‒displacement curve of the 3D-printed prosthesis was evaluated.

Results

In terms of displacement, the finite element analysis showed greater overall stability for the novel prosthesis than traditional glenohumeral joint arthrodesis. There was no obvious stress concentration in the internal part of the 3D-printed glenohumeral fusion prosthesis; the stable structure bore most of the stress, and the force was well distributed. Adding lateral plate fixation improved the stability and mechanical properties of the prosthesis. Furthermore, the biomechanical results showed that without lateral plate fixation, the total displacement of the prosthesis doubled; adding lateral plate fixation could reduce and disperse strain on the glenoid.

Conclusion

The design of the 3D-printed glenohumeral fusion prosthesis was rational, and its stability and mechanical properties were better than those of traditional glenohumeral joint arthrodesis. Biomechanical verification demonstrated the feasibility and safety of this prosthesis, indicating its potential for proximal humerus bone defect reconstruction after tumor resection.

Malawer type I/V proximal humerus reconstruction after tumor resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several reconstruction methods exist for Malawer type I/V proximal humerus reconstruction after bone tumor resection; however, no consensus has been reached regarding the preferred methods.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on various types of proximal humerus oncologic reconstruction methods. We collected data on postoperative functional outcomes assessed based on Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores, 5-year reconstruction survival rates, and complications. We calculated each reconstruction's weighted mean based on the sample size and standard errors. Complications were categorized based on the Henderson classification. Based on these integrated data, our primary objective is to propose an optimal strategy for proximal humerus reconstruction after bone tumor resection.

RESULTS

We examined various reconstruction techniques, including modular prosthesis (752 patients in 21 articles), osteoarticular allograft (142 patients in 6 articles), allograft prosthesis composites (APCs) (236 patients in 12 articles), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (141 patients in 10 articles), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (33 patients in 4 articles), claviculo-pro-humero (CPH) technique (51 patients in 6 articles), and cement spacer (207 patients in 4 articles). Weighted mean MSTS scores were: modular prosthesis (73.8%), osteoarticular allograft (74.4%), APCs (79.2%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (77.0%), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (76.1%), CPH technique (75.1%), and cement spacer (69.1%). Weighted 5-year reconstruction survival rates were modular prosthesis (85.4%), osteoarticular allograft (67.6%), APCs (85.2%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (84.1%), and cement spacer (88.0%). Reconstruction survival data was unavailable for composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty and CPH technique. Major complications included shoulder joint instability: modular prosthesis (26.2%), osteoarticular allograft (41.5%), APCs (33.9%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (17%), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (6.1%), CPH technique (2.0%), and cement spacer (8.7%). Aseptic loosening of the prosthesis occurred: modular prosthesis (3.9%) and reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (5.7%). Allograft fracture was observed in 54.9% of patients with osteoarticular allograft.

CONCLUSION

The complication profiles differed among reconstruction methods. Weighted mean MSTS scores exceeded 70% in all methods except cement spacer, and the 5-year reconstruction survival rate surpassed 80% for all methods except osteoarticular allograft. Proximal humerus reconstruction after bone tumor resection should consider potential complications and patients' individual factors.

Proximal Humerus Reconstruction for Bone Sarcomas: A Critical Analysis

» The proximal humerus is a common location for primary bone tumors, and the goal of surgical care is to obtain a negative margin resection and subsequent reconstruction of the proximal humerus to allow for shoulder function.» The current evidence supports the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty over hemiarthroplasty when reconstructing the proximal humerus after resection of a bone sarcoma if the axillary nerve can be preserved.» There is a lack of high-quality data comparing allograft prosthetic composite (APC) with endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus.» Reverse APC should be performed using an allograft with donor rotator cuff to allow for soft-tissue repair of the donor and host rotator cuff, leading to improvements in shoulder motion compared with an endoprosthesis.

What Are the Complications, Function, and Survival of Tumor-devitalized Autografts Used in Patients With Limb-sparing Surgery for Bone and Soft Tissue Tumors? A Japanese Musculoskeletal Oncology Group Multi-institutional Study

BACKGROUND

Tumor-devitalized autografts treated with deep freezing, pasteurization, and irradiation are biological reconstruction methods after tumor excision for aggressive or malignant bone or soft tissue tumors that involve a major long bone. Tumor-devitalized autografts do not require a bone bank, they carry no risk of viral or bacterial disease transmission, they are associated with a smaller immunologic response, and they have a better shape and size match to the site in which they are implanted. However, they are associated with disadvantages as well; it is not possible to assess margins and tumor necrosis, the devitalized bone is not normal and has limited healing potential, and the biomechanical strength is decreased owing to processing and tumor-related bone loss. Because this technique is not used in many countries, there are few reports on the results of this procedure such as complications, graft survival, and limb function.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What was the rate of complications such as fracture, nonunion, infection, or recurrence in a tumor-devitalized autograft treated with deep freezing, pasteurization, and irradiation, and what factors were associated with the complication? (2) What were the 5-year and 10-year grafted bone survival (free from graft bone removal) of the three methods used to devitalize a tumor-containing autograft, and what factors were associated with grafted bone survival? (3) What was the proportion of patients with union of the tumor-devitalized autograft and what factors were associated with union of the graft-host bone junction? (4) What was the limb function after the tumor-devitalized autograft, and what factors were related to favorable limb function?

METHODS

This was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study that included data from 26 tertiary sarcoma centers affiliated with the Japanese Musculoskeletal Oncology Group. From January 1993 to December 2018, 494 patients with benign or malignant tumors of the long bones were treated with tumor-devitalized autografts (using deep freezing, pasteurization, or irradiation techniques). Patients who were treated with intercalary or composite (an osteoarticular autograft with a total joint arthroplasty) tumor-devitalized autografts and followed for at least 2 years were considered eligible for inclusion. Accordingly, 7% (37 of 494) of the patients were excluded because they died within 2 years; in 19% (96), an osteoarticular graft was used, and another 10% (51) were lost to follow-up or had incomplete datasets. We did not collect information on those who died or were lost to follow-up. Considering this, 63% of the patients (310 of 494) were included in the analysis. The median follow-up was 92 months (range 24 to 348 months), the median age was 27 years (range 4 to 84), and 48% (148 of 310) were female; freezing was performed for 47% (147) of patients, pasteurization for 29% (89), and irradiation for 24% (74). The primary endpoints of this study were the cumulative incidence rate of complications and the cumulative survival of grafted bone, assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. We used the classification of complications and graft failures proposed by the International Society of Limb Salvage. Factors relating to complications and grafted autograft removal were analyzed. The secondary endpoints were the proportion of bony union and better limb function, evaluated by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score. Factors relating to bony union and limb function were also analyzed. Data were investigated in each center by a record review and transferred to Kanazawa University.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence rate of any complication was 42% at 5 years and 51% at 10 years. The most frequent complications were nonunion in 36 patients and infection in 34 patients. Long resection (≥ 15 cm) was associated with an increased risk of any complication based on the multivariate analyses (RR 1.8 [95% CI 1.3 to 2.5]; p < 0.01). There was no difference in the rate of complications among the three devitalizing methods. The cumulative graft survival rates were 87% at 5 years and 81% at 10 years. After controlling for potential confounding variables including sex, resection length, reconstruction type, procedure type, and chemotherapy, we found that long resection (≥ 15 cm) and composite reconstruction were associated with an increased risk of grafted autograft removal (RR 2.5 [95% CI 1.4 to 4.5]; p < 0.01 and RR 2.3 [95% CI 1.3 to 4.1]; p < 0.01). The pedicle freezing procedure showed better graft survival than the extracorporeal devitalizing procedures (94% versus 85% in 5 years; RR 3.1 [95% CI 1.1 to 9.0]; p = 0.03). No difference was observed in graft survival among the three devitalizing methods. Further, 78% (156 of 200 patients) of patients in the intercalary group and 87% (39 of 45 patients) of those in the composite group achieved primary union within 2 years. Male sex and the use of nonvascularized grafts were associated with an increased risk of nonunion (RR 2.8 [95% CI 1.3 to 6.1]; p < 0.01 and 0.28 [95% CI 0.1 to 1.0]; p = 0.04, respectively) in the intercalary group after controlling for confounding variables, including sex, site, chemotherapy, resection length, graft type, operation time, and fixation type. The median Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 83% (range 12% to 100%). After controlling for confounding variables including age, site, resection length, event occurrence, and graft removal, age younger than 40 years (RR 2.0 [95% CI 1.1 to 3.7]; p = 0.03), tibia (RR 6.9 [95% CI 2.7 to 17.5]; p < 0.01), femur (RR 4.8 [95% CI 1.9 to 11.7]; p < 0.01), no event (RR 2.2 [95% CI 1.1 to 4.5]; p = 0.03), and no graft removal (RR 2.9 [95% CI 1.2 to 7.3]; p = 0.03) were associated with an increased limb function. The composite graft was associated with decreased limb function (RR 0.4 [95% CI 0.2 to 0.7]; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This multicenter study revealed that frozen, irradiated, and pasteurized tumor-bearing autografts had similar rates of complications and graft survival and all resulted in similar limb function. The recurrence rate was 10%; however, no tumor recurred with the devitalized autograft. The pedicle freezing procedure reduces the osteotomy site, which may contribute to better graft survival. Furthermore, tumor-devitalized autografts had reasonable survival and favorable limb function, which are comparable to findings reported for bone allografts. Overall, tumor-devitalized autografts are a useful option for biological reconstruction and are suitable for osteoblastic tumors or osteolytic tumors without severe loss of mechanical bone strength. Tumor-devitalized autografts could be considered when obtaining allografts is difficult and when a patient is unwilling to have a tumor prosthesis and allograft for various reasons such as cost or socioreligious reasons.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Functional outcome and quality of life following resection of the proximal humerus performed for musculoskeletal tumors and reconstruction done by four different methods

INTRODUCTION

The proximal humerus is a frequent site for both primary and secondary bone tumors. Several options are currently available to reconstruct the resected humerus, but there is no consensus regarding optimal reconstruction. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the functional outcome, complications and patient compliance following four different types of reconstructive techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The authors performed 90 proximal humerus resections due to primary and secondary bone tumors over the past 21 years. Four different procedures were performed for reconstruction following the resection: fibula autograft transplantation, osteoarticular allograft implantation, modular tumor endoprosthesis (hemiarthroplasty) and reconstruction of the defect with a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite. A retrospective analysis of the complications and patient's physical status was performed. Functional outcome and life quality was evaluated by using the MSTS and SF-36 scores.

RESULTS

The best range of motion was observed following arthroplasty with a reverse shoulder prosthesis-homograft composite followed by a fibula autograft reconstruction. Revision surgery was required due to major complications most frequently in the osteoarticular allograft group, followed by the reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite group, the autologous fibula transplantation group; the tumor endoprosthesis hemiarthroplasty group had superior results regarding revision surgery (40, 25, 24 and 14% respectively). MSTS was 84% on average for the reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite group, 70% for the autologous fibula group, 67% for the anatomical hemiarthroplasty group and 64% for the osteoartricular allograft group. Using the SF-36 questionnaire for assessment no significant differences were found between the four groups regarding quality of life.

DISCUSSION

Based on the results of our study the best functional performance (range of motion and patient compliance) was achieved in the a reverse prosthesis-allograft combination group-in cases where the axillary nerve could be spared. The use of an osteoarticular allograft resulted in unsatisfying functional results and high complication rates, therefore we do not recommend it as a reconstructive method following resection of the proximal humerus due to either primary or metastatic bone tumors. Young patients who have good life expectancy but a small humerus or intramedullar cavity reconstruction by implantation of a fibula autograft is a good option. For patients with a poor prognosis (i.g. bone metastases) or in cases where the axillary nerve must be sacrificed, hemiarthroplasty using a tumor endoprosthesis was found to have acceptable results with a low complication rate. According to the MSTS and SF-36 functional scoring systems patients compliance was nearly identical following all four types of reconstruction techniques; the underlying cause may be the complexity of the shoulder girdle. However, we recommend the implantation of a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft whenever indication is appropriate, as it has been demonstrated to provide excellent functional outcomes, especially in young adults.

Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC) for Proximal Humeral Bone Loss: Outcomes and Perspectives

(1) Background: Allograft prosthetic composite (APC) represents one of the techniques used for reconstruction in large proximal humeral bone deficits. The present systematic review aimed at summarizing the state of the art of the technique and analyzing its outcomes. (2) Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed to perform this systematic review. A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. All the studies analyzing the rates of allograft prosthesis composite were pooled, and the data were extracted and analyzed. (3) Results: A total of 10 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review for a total of 239 patients. The rate of patient satisfaction with surgery was reported in 7 studies with a mean of 86.4% ± 13.64. The mean constant score was 45.7 ± 3.51, the mean ASES score was 63.58 ± 8.37, and the mean SST was 4.6 ± 1.04. The mean revision rate observed was 10.32% ± 3.63 and the mean implant survival was 83.66% ± 14.98. (4) Conclusions: Based on the currently available data, allograft prosthesis composite represents a valuable option for the reconstruction of proximal humeral deficits. All studies analyzed showed the favorable impact of this surgical technique on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Allograft-Prosthetic Composite Reconstruction for Proximal Humerus Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes and Complications

BACKGROUND

In smaller studies, allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) has been used for proximal humerus bone loss with some success, although with notable complication risk. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to describe outcomes and complications after proximal humerus APC and how major APC complications are defined in the literature.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried for articles on APC for proximal humeral bone loss secondary to tumor, fracture, or failed arthroplasty. Primary outcomes included postoperative range of motion, outcome scores (Musculoskeletal Tumor Society [MSTS], Simple Shoulder Test [SST], American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Constant, visual analog scale [VAS], and subjective shoulder value [SSV]), and complication incidence. We also described individual study definitions of APC malunion/nonunion, methods of postoperative evaluation, malunion/nonunion rates, allograft fracture/fragmentation rates, and mean union time, when available. Secondarily, we compared hemiarthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles including 375 shoulders were evaluated (average age: 49 years, follow-up: 54 months). Fifty-seven percent of procedures were performed for tumors, 1% for proximal humerus trauma sequelae, and 42% for revision arthroplasty. Average postoperative forward elevation was 82° (69-94°), abduction 60° (30-90°), and external rotation 23° (17-28°). Average MSTS score was 82% (77%-87%), SST score 5.3 (4.5-6.1), ASES score 64 (54-74), Constant score 44 (38-50), VAS score 2.2 (1.7-2.7), and SSV 51 (45-58). There was a 51% complication rate with an 18% nonallograft surgical complication rate, 26% APC nonunion/malunion/resorption rate, and 10% APC fracture/fragmentation rate. Fifteen percent of nonunited APCs underwent secondary bone grafting; 3% required a new allograft; and overall revision rate was 12%. APC nonunion/malunion was defined in 2 of 16, malunion/nonunion rates in 14 of 16, fracture/fragmentation rates in 6 of 16, and mean union time (7 months) in 4 of 16 studies.

CONCLUSION

APC reconstruction of the proximal humerus remains a treatment option, albeit with substantial complication rates. In addition, there is a need for APC literature to report institutional definitions of nonunion/malunion, postoperative evaluation, and time to union for a more standardized evaluation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; systematic review. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Early functional and therapeutic effect of reversed tumour shoulder prosthesis reconstruction after proximal humerus tumour resection

Introduction

Reconstruction of proximal humeral tumours after resection is still controversial. And there are few articles describing oncology patients' postoperative function after reversed tumour shoulder prosthesis reconstruction. We investigated the functional results of patients who underwent reversed tumour shoulder prosthesis, including those who did not preserve the deltoid ending point.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively evaluated 16 patients with proximal humerus tumours who had undergone reversed tumour shoulder prosthesis. All patients underwent type Malawer I proximal humeral resection surgery and standard reverse tumour shoulder arthroplasty with a modular reverse shoulder prosthesis. We sutured the severed end of the deltoid to the brachialis muscle using the artificial patch for patients who had their deltoid ending point resected. Patients are rehabilitated and followed up according to our instructions.

Result

All patients were followed up for a mean of 27.4 months (13–59), and their mean age was 45.9 years (15–74). The mean length of the humeral resection was 11.6 cm (5–15). The mean shoulder mobility was 122° (82°–180°) in forward flexion; 39° (31°–45°) in posterior extension; 102° (65°–172°) in abduction; 43° (30°–60°) in external rotation; 83° (61°–90°) in internal rotation, and a mean MSTS score of 77.9% (63.3%–93.3%). The mean DASH score was 20.8 (2.5–35.8). The mean VAS score was 0.9. For patients who had their deltoid ending point resected, the mean length of the humeral resection was 14.0 cm; the mean shoulder mobility was 109° in forward flexion; 37.8° in posterior extension; 102.0° in abduction; 38.3° in external rotation; 86.3° in internal rotation, and the mean MSTS score was 78.8%; the mean DASH score was 21.6; the mean VAS score was 1.0.

Conclusion

Patients who underwent reverse tumour shoulder arthroplasty can achieve good early postoperative function, survival rate and low complication rate. In addition, patients who had their deltoid ending point removed also obtained good function after particular reconstruction.

Reconstruction by allograft-prosthetic composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty after proximal humerus tumor resection: Clinical and radiographic assessment at a minimum 2years' follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is an option to conserve limb function after resection of proximal humerus malignancy. An allograft-composite RSA is an alternative to a tumor prosthesis, and can restore proximal humeral bone stock. The aim of the present study was to assess medium-term radiographic and clinical results for such composite implants.

METHODS

Patients with malignant proximal humerus tumor treated by resection and reconstruction by composite RSA were retrospectively analyzed at a minimum 24months' follow-up. Clinical assessment used Constant score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) and ADLER score. Standard radiographic work-up assessed allograft absorption and screened for implant loosening.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were included, with a mean age of 51years (range: 19-87years) and mean 30months' follow-up (range: 24-84months). Mean tumor resection was 10cm (range: 6-17cm). Etiologies comprised chondrosarcoma (n=6), osteosarcoma (n=2), B-cell lymphoma (n=1) and single metastasis (n=2). Bony increased-offset allograft was associated to humerus reconstruction in 8 cases, and latissimus dorsi tendon transfer in 5 cases. Mean Constant score was 49 points, SSV 52%, and ADLER score 20 points. Increased glenoid implant offset associated to tendon transfer significantly improved anterior elevation and external rotation. Radiographic allograft consolidation to the native humerus was acquired in 73% of cases, while osteolysis in the epiphyseal-metaphyseal zone was found in 64%. There were no cases of humeral implant loosening. Glenoid allograft absorption was systematic (8/8 cases), without inducing loosening of the implant baseplate.

CONCLUSION

Composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty is functionally effective after massive resection. However, allograft absorption is a drawback, casting doubt on continued use on the glenoid side.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for oncologic reconstruction of the proximal humerus: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been growing interest in the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) for reconstruction of the proximal humerus after oncologic resection. However, the indications and outcomes of oncologic rTSA remain unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify studies that reported outcomes of patients who underwent rTSA for oncologic reconstruction of the proximal humerus. Extracted data included demographic characteristics, indications, operative techniques, outcomes, and complications. Weighted means were calculated according to sample size.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included, containing 194 patients who underwent rTSA for oncologic reconstruction of the proximal humerus. The mean patient age was 48 years, and 52% of patients were male. Primary malignancies were present in 55% of patients; metastatic disease, 30%; and benign tumors, 9%. The mean humeral resection length was 12 cm. The mean postoperative Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 78%; Constant score, 60; and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, 77%. The mean complication rate was 28%, with shoulder instability accounting for 63% of complications. Revisions were performed in 16% of patients, and the mean implant survival rate was 89% at a mean follow-up across studies of 53 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the existing literature is of poor study quality, with a high level of heterogeneity and risk of bias, rTSA appears to be a suitable option in appropriately selected patients undergoing oncologic resection and reconstruction of the proximal humerus. The most common complication is instability. Higher-quality evidence is needed to help guide decision making on appropriate implant utilization for patients undergoing oncologic resection of the proximal humerus.

Do reverse total shoulder replacements have better clinical and functional outcomes than hemiarthroplasty for patients undergoing proximal humeral tumor resection using devitalized autograft composite reconstruction: a case-control study

Objective

To compare the efficacy and prognosis of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with shoulder hemiarthroplasty (SHA) using devitalized autograft or allograft composite reconstruction after proximal humeral tumor resection.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent SHA (32) and rTSA (20) for tumor resections of the proximal humerus from January 2014 to July 2020. The clinical results included duration of the operation, intraoperative blood loss, bone union, visual analog scale (VAS) score, shoulder range of motion (ROM), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder score, recurrence, and overall survival.

Results

Fifty-two patients were followed up for a mean of 30 months. Thirty-two patients were SHA with allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) reconstructions, while other 20 were rTSA with devitalized autograft-prosthetic composite reconstructions. At the end of the follow-up, 2 recurrence, 3 postoperative infections, and 4 subluxations occurred among the SHA patients. Two patients in the rTSA group had postoperative anterior dislocation and underwent revision surgery with surgical mesh, and 2 (2/20) had grade II scapular notching. The mean VAS score of the shoulder was 1.5 ± 0.8 in the rTSA group and 2.3 ± 1.2 in the SHA group (p < 0.05). The mean active forward flexion of the shoulder joint was 50.6 ± 6.0 in the SHA group and 100 ± 7.6 in the rTSA group (p < 0.05). The ASES shoulder score was 78 ± 3.0 in the rTSA group and 52 ± 5.6 in the SHA group (p < 0.05). The overall 3-year survival rate of all patients was 60.0%, and patients in the rTSA group showed better survival in terms of the mean 3-year OS than patients in the SHA group (p = 0.04).

Conclusion

rTSA with devitalized autograft-prosthetic composite can offer a reasonable reconstruction of the shoulder joint after Malawer type I tumor resection. Compared with patients who underwent SHA, patients who underwent rTSA present good outcomes, a better range of motion, better bone union, and no increase in instability rate in the mid-term.

Megaprosthesis Versus Allograft Prosthesis Composite for the Management of Massive Skeletal Defects: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Megaprosthesis and Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC) are the established treatment modalities for massive skeletal defects. There are a handful of studies comparing the use of megaprosthesis and APC in the management of substantial bone loss and it has always been a topic of debate regarding the superiority of one modality over the other. Therefore, we aim to compare the functional outcome and implant survivorship of each modality including complications, revision rates, amputation rate and mortality.

RECENT FINDINGS

The Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC) constitutes a skeletal allograft implanted with a revision type prosthesis in it. The biological environment provided by the allograft allows attachment of the muscles and tendons imparting better stability and function. However, the literature is not kind enough with APC due to associated risk of infection, disease transmission and nonunion at the graft-host junction. The megaprosthesis (MP) on the other hand is a nonbiologic modality with better survivorship but subservient functional outcome. Infection has been a major issue in both the modalities. Advancement in metallurgy using silver coated megaprosthesis also failed to provide strong evidence in preventing infection. The functional outcome is better with APC in both the upper and lower limbs. However, the survivorship is better with megaprosthesis, especially in the upper limb when revision rates were compared between the two modalities. Deep infection and mechanical complications were significantly higher in the APC group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of amputation rate, mortality, and local recurrence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE (CEBM)

2a.

Proximal Humerus Reconstruction after Tumor Resection: An Overview of Surgical Management

Proximal humerus is one of the anatomical sites that are most frequently involved by bone and soft tissue malignant tumors. Alone or in association with adjuvant treatments, surgery represents the main therapeutic option to treat and eradicate these diseases. Once the first-line option, in the last decades, amputation lost its role as treatment of choice for the large majority of cases in favor of the modern limb sparing surgery that promises to preserve anatomy and-as much as possible-upper limb functionality. Currently, the main approaches used to replace proximal humerus after a wide resection in oncologic surgery can be summarized in biological reconstructions (allografts and autografts), prosthetic reconstructions (anatomic endoprostheses, total reverse shoulder prostheses), and graft-prosthetic composite reconstructions. The purpose of this overview is to present nowadays surgical options for proximal humerus reconstruction in oncological patients, with their respective advantages and disadvantages.

Clinical Outcomes after Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty According to Primary Diagnosis

Background

To compare the clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) according to the primary diagnosis.

Methods

In 98 shoulders (97 patients), RTSA was performed for cuff tear arthropathy (45), massive rotator cuff tear without glenohumeral arthritis (31), posttraumatic arthritis (9), primary osteoarthritis (6), rheumatoid arthritis (4), and arthritis due to infection sequelae (3). The average age of the patients at surgery was 68.9 years (range, 46-84 years). The mean follow-up duration was 48.4 months (range, 24-85 months).

Results

In the overall series, the mean subjective pain score (visual analog scale) during motion decreased from 5.2 preoperatively to 1.8 at 2 years of follow-up. There were significant improvements in active forward flexion (preoperatively 51.5° to 121.8° at 2 years of follow-up). The average Constant score improved from 35.4 points to 57.8 points and UCLA score improved from 13.4 points to 28.8 points. The Constant score and UCLA score were 60.8 and 31.0 points, respectively, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The Constant score and UCLA score were 58.4 and 29.1 points, respectively, in patients with cuff tear disease and 55.7 and 27.7 points, respectively, in patients with posttraumatic arthritis. Patients' subjective satisfaction was 86.8 points in the overall series; highest in the patients with arthritis by infection sequelae (96.7 points) and lowest in the patients with posttraumatic arthritis (82.2 points). In terms of complications, there were 17 cases (17.3%) of scapular notching and 2 patients with suprascapular nerve irritation symptom, but no patients with permanent neuropathy.

Conclusions

The range of forward flexion and abduction motion, pain relief, and functionality were improved after RTSA in not only patients with cuff tear disease but also those with other arthritic diseases. There was no difference in the clinical outcomes of RTSA between patients with cuff tear disease and those with other arthritic diseases.

Allograft-Composite Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty for Malignant Tumor of the Proximal Humerus

Composite-allograft reverse shoulder arthroplasties are a surgical alternative in malignant tumor reconstructions following segmental bone resection of the proximal humerus. They allow reinsertion of the rotator cuff tendons and reliable restoration of humeral height, increasing prosthetic stability and mobility. Preoperative local tumor extension assessment must be thorough and a strict surgical technique must be followed to obtain satisfactory functional results. The indications for this procedure include a strictly intraosseous tumor of the proximal humerus corresponding to an S3-S4 A resection following criteria provided by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society as described by Enneking and colleagues in 1990. Certain conditions must question the procedure such as extended S3-S4-S5 bone resections, partial sacrifice of the deltoid muscle, preoperative deltoid impairment, and glenohumeral arthrectomy. Here, we report technical details and indications of composite-allograft reverse shoulder arthroplasty in the context of tumor segmental resection of the proximal humerus, especially in the humeral preparation.

The Personalized Shoulder Reconstruction Assisted by 3D Printing Technology After Resection of the Proximal Humerus Tumours

Background

The reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) may be a promising alternative for proximal humerus tumours because of good postoperative shoulder function. However, the conventional reverse shoulder prosthesis can not meet individual needs and RSA has been associated with a relatively high complication rate. Therefore, implant design and surgical reconstruction technique warrant further study.

Methods

Between September 2015 and May 2018, 7 patients were treated via RSA after en-bloc resection of the proximal humerus tumours. A 3D-printed guiding baseplate was used to assist the implant of the 3D-printed glenoid prosthesis; a personalized humerus prosthesis was used to reconstruct the proximal humerus. The functional outcomes were assessed by range of motion (ROM) of the shoulder joint, Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) functional score, and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS). We also analyzed tumour recurrence, metastases, and complications associated with the reconstruction procedure.

Results

All patients were observed for 14 to 36 months, with an average of 23.6 months. At the final follow-up, the mean MSTS score was 85.7% (range, 73.3–93.3%), and the mean TESS score was 90.0% (range, 84.1–95.9%). No instability, infection, scapular notching, loosening or fracture were observed in this series. One patient with GCT suffered from pulmonary metastasis, while one with osteosarcoma died because of pulmonary metastasis.

Conclusion

The 3D-printed guiding baseplate facilitated the accurate implantation of the glenoid prosthesis. The RSA based on a 3D-printed glenoid prosthesis and a personalized custom-made humerus prosthesis significantly improved the shoulder function and decreased the complication rate. Further studies of a larger scale with longer follow-up are required to validate this technology.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty provides stability and better function than hemiarthroplasty following resection of proximal humerus tumors

BACKGROUND

Tumors may necessitate resection of a substantial portion of the proximal humerus and surrounding soft tissues, making reconstruction challenging. We evaluated outcomes in patients undergoing treatment of tumors of the proximal humerus with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) or shoulder hemiarthroplasty.

METHODS

Patients who underwent rTSA (n = 10) or shoulder hemiarthroplasty (n = 37) for tumors of the proximal humerus in 2009 to 2017 were reviewed. Of these patients, 27 had died, leaving 20 for review. The mean follow-up period of the survivors was 27.1 months. They were evaluated clinically and contacted to determine the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, and visual analog scale score.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications occurred in 13 hemiarthroplasty patients (34%). Tumor recurrence occurred in 3 hemiarthroplasty patients (7.9%), whereas in the rTSA group, 1 patient (10%) had a postoperative complication, with no recurrences. One hemiarthroplasty patient required revision surgery with rTSA to improve shoulder function. Six dislocations and two subluxations occurred in the hemiarthroplasty group, whereas no subluxations occurred in the rTSA group (P = .14). Mean range of motion was 85° of forward flexion for rTSA patients (n = 10) compared with 28° for hemiarthroplasty patients (P < .001). The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 63 for hemiarthroplasty patients (n = 5) and 59 for rTSA patients (n = 4). The mean Simple Shoulder Test scores were 3.8 and 2.4, respectively. The mean visual analog scale pain scores were 2.4 and 2.5, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty can reproducibly reconstruct the shoulder in patients requiring oncologic proximal humerus resection. Patients have good outcomes, better range of motion, and no increase in instability rates compared with hemiarthroplasty.

What Is the Survival and Function of Modular Reverse Total Shoulder Prostheses in Patients Undergoing Tumor Resections in Whom an Innervated Deltoid Muscle Can Be Preserved?

BACKGROUND

After proximal humerus resection for bone tumors, restoring anatomy and shoulder function remains demanding because muscles and bone are removed to obtain tumor-free surgical margins. Current modes of reconstruction such as anatomic modular prostheses, osteoarticular allografts, or allograft-prosthetic composites and arthrodeses are associated with relatively poor shoulder function related to loss of the deltoid and rotator cuff muscles. Newer prosthetic designs like the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are felt to be useful in other reconstructions where rotator cuff function is compromised, so it seemed logical that it might help in tumor reconstructions as well in patients where the deltoid muscle and its innervation can be preserved.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In patients with a tumor of the proximal humerus that can be resected with preservation of the deltoid muscle, (1) What complications are associated with tumor resection and reconstruction with a modular RTSA? (2) What are the functional results of modular RTSA in these patients?

METHODS

From January 2011 to January 2018, we treated 52 patients for bone tumors of the proximal humerus. Of these, three patients were treated with forequarter amputation, 14 were treated with standard modular proximal humerus implants, seven were treated with allograft-prosthetic composites (RTSA-APC), and 28 were treated with a modular RTSA. Generally, we used anatomic modular prosthetic reconstruction if during the tumor resection none of the abductor mechanism could be spared. Conversely, we preferred reconstruction with RTSA if an innervated deltoid muscle could be spared, but the rotator cuff and capsule could not, using RTSA-APC or modular RTSA if humeral osteotomy was distal or proximal to deltoid insertion, respectively. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed only patients treated with modular RTSA after proximal humerus resection. We excluded three patients treated with modular RTSA as revision procedures after mechanical failure of previous biological reconstructions and three patients treated after December 2016 to obtain an expected minimum follow-up of 2 years. There were nine men and 13 women, with a mean (range) age of 55 years (18 to 71). Reconstruction was performed in all patients using silver-coated modular RTSA protheses. Patients were clinically checked according to oncologic protocol. Complications and function were evaluated at final follow-up by the treating surgeon (PR) and shoulder surgeon (AC). Complications were evaluated according to Henderson classification. Functional results were assessed with the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score (range 0 points to 30 points), Constant-Murley score (range 0 to 100), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (range 0 to 100). The statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Complications occurred in five of 22 patients; there was a shoulder dislocation (Type I) in four patients and aseptic loosening (Type II) in one. Function in these patients on the outcomes scales we used was generally satisfactory; the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 29, the mean Constant score was 61, and the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 81.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this was a small series of patients with heterogeneous diagnoses and resection types, and we were not able to directly compare the results of this procedure with those of other available reconstructions, we found patients treated with RTSA achieved reasonable shoulder function after resection and reconstruction of a proximal humerus tumor. It may not be valuable in all tumor resections, but in patients in whom the deltoid can be partly spared, this procedure appears to reasonably restore short-term shoulder function. However, future larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Plate-prosthesis composite reconstruction after large segmental resection of proximal humeral tumors: A retrospective comparative study

Since the standard reconstructive option after large segmental resection of proximal humeral tumors remained controversial, we designed and applied plate-prosthesis composite (PPC) for this circumstance. The purposes of the study were to: compare the functional outcome, implant survival (IS), surgical risk of PPC with those of conventional proximal humeral prosthesis (PHP); and describe the design and reconstructive procedure of PPC.Twenty patients (11 males, 9 females), who received intraarticular proximal humeral resection without preservation of abductor mechanism, were included in this study, with a mean resection length accounting for 72.5% (range, 61.9-81.8%) of whole humeral length. According to the reconstructive options, we categorized patients into PPC group (9 patients) and PHP group (11 patients). PPC was a semi-custom-made endoprosthesis, with modular proximal part same as PHP and custom-made distal part including dumpy stem and composite lateral anatomic plate for distal humerus. The mechanical prosthetic complication was defined as the imaging evidence regardless of reoperation. The IS was defined as the time from surgery to the occurrence of mechanical prosthetic complication.The mean follow-up time was 40.1 months (range, 14-129). The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 93 scores of PPC and PHP group showed no significant difference (73.3% vs 70.0%, P = .46). Compared to PHP group, PPC group showed significantly lower mechanical prosthetic complication rates (0 vs 45.4%, P = .03) and better IS (86.0 vs 59.3 ± 21.7 months, P = .028). Moreover, the comparison of surgical time (3.2 vs 3.3 hours, P = .60), blood loss (288.9 vs 376.4 mL, P = .15) and perioperative complication rates (11.1% vs 18.2%, P = .58) between 2 groups showed no differences.For reconstruction after large segmental resection of proximal humeral tumors, PPC achieved better IS while maintained similar functional outcome compared to conventional PHP without influencing the complexity and safety of surgery.

Reconstruction techniques after proximal humerus tumour resection

Reconstruction of the proximal humerus after tumour resection is a surgical challenge. The goal consists not only in reconstructing the resected bone segment, but also in restoring a stable and mobile shoulder. The choice of the technique depends on the status of the soft-tissues at the end of the resection. The preoperative work-up must determine the oncological goals of the resection and identify the structures that can be spared. When deltoid muscle function is preserved, a reverse prosthesis offers the best stability and mobility outcomes. The objective of this work is to describe the indications and techniques used in the various available reconstruction methods. Shoulder mobilities are restored using some of these methods and lost with others. Emphasis is put on the reverse shoulder prosthesis, with a description of its variants (standard prosthesis, cement sleeve, allograft-prosthesis composite, and massive prosthesis) and a discussion of the management of its early complications. When performing reverse shoulder arthroplasty, glenoid implant preparation and positioning are crucial to achieve stability, and humeral length restoration will govern soft-tissue tension. Latissimus dorsi tendon transfer is required to restore active external rotation if the posterior rotator cuff tendons have been removed. Allograft-anatomic prosthesis composites, osteo-cartilaginous allografts, arthrodesis, and spacer prostheses are proposed for patients in whom the local conditions preclude implantation of a reverse shoulder prosthesis.

Mechanical Properties of a Newly Additive Manufactured Implant Material Based on Ti-42Nb

The application of Ti-6Al-4V alloy or commercially pure titanium for additive manufacturing enables the fabrication of complex structural implants and patient-specific implant geometries. However, the difference in Young’s modulus of α + β-phase Ti alloys compared to the human bone promotes stress-shielding effects in the implant–bone interphase. The aim of the present study is the mechanical characterization of a new pre-alloyed β-phase Ti-42Nb alloy for application in additive manufacturing. The present investigation focuses on the mechanical properties of SLM-printed Ti-42Nb alloy in tensile and compression tests. In addition, the raw Ti-42Nb powder, the microstructure of the specimens prior to and after compression tests, as well as the fracture occurring in tensile tests are characterized by means of the SEM/EDX analysis. The Ti-42Nb raw powder exhibits a dendrite-like Ti-structure, which is melted layer-by-layer into a microstructure with a very homogeneous distribution of Nb and Ti during the SLM process. Tensile tests display Young’s modulus of 60.51 ± 3.92 GPa and an ultimate tensile strength of 683.17 ± 16.67 MPa, whereas, under a compressive load, a compressive strength of 1330.74 ± 53.45 MPa is observed. The combination of high mechanical strength and low elastic modulus makes Ti-42Nb an interesting material for orthopedic and dental implants. The spherical shape of the pre-alloyed material additionally allows for application in metal 3D printing, enabling the fabrication of patient-specific structural implants.

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.