En bloc resection and intercalary prosthesis implantation for the treatment of humeral diaphyseal bone metastases

Long bone shaft metastasis: a comparative study between cement filling and intercalary prosthesis

BACKGROUND

Metastatic bone lesions in the extremities can cause severe pain and pathological fractures, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. Timely intervention and effective management of long bone metastases can positively influence patient outcomes, including survival rates and subsequent treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and associated complications of two surgical reconstruction techniques and propose a more effective limb reconstruction approach for long bone metastases.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 28 patients with complete clinical data who underwent a surgical procedure for long bone metastases of the extremities in our department between January 2017 and June 2022. The patients were divided into two groups based on their surgical methods. In group 1, the affected bones were curetted and filled with cement, then secured with plates or intramedullary nails. In group 2, the affected bone segments were completely removed and replaced with custom intercalary prostheses. Various factors, including general patient information, surgical details, surgical effectiveness, and common complications, were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in general patient information between the two groups, including age, gender, surgical site, and primary tumor type. The operative times were 115.37 min for group 1 and 108.90 min for group 2, respectively (p > 0.05). However, intraoperative blood loss differed significantly between the groups, with 769 ml in group 1 and 521 ml in group 2 (p < 0.05). The postoperative MSTS scores were 91% for group 1 and 92% for group 2 (p > 0.05). Postoperative complications included two cases of internal fixation failure and three cases of tumor recurrence in group 1, resulting in a 33% incidence rate, while group 2 experienced a 15% incidence rate with two cases of internal fixation failure.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that both surgical techniques are effective for the treatment of long bone metastases of the extremities. However, the custom intercalary prostheses technique in group 2 showed a lower incidence of complications and less intraoperative blood loss. Therefore, it may be a more effective limb reconstruction approach for long bone metastases. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.

Are Vascularized Fibula Autografts a Long-lasting Reconstruction After Intercalary Resection of the Humerus for Primary Bone Tumors?

BACKGROUND

A vascularized fibula graft (VFG) is the vascular autograft most frequently used to restore large segmental long bone defects, particularly in the upper limb. Because the use of a vascularized fibula involves an operation in an uninvolved extremity with potential morbidity, it is important to document that this type of reconstruction is successful in restoring function to the humerus. However, the long-term results of VFG after intercalary resection of the humeral diaphysis for bone tumors are still unknown.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What was the complication rate of reconstruction? (2) What was the functional result after surgical treatment, as assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) score, and Constant score? (3) What was the survivorship of these grafts free from revision and graft removal at 5, 10, and 15 years?

METHODS

Between 1987 and 2021, 127 patients were treated at our institution with en bloc resection for a primary malignant or an aggressive benign bone tumor of the humerus; we excluded patients treated with extra-articular resection or amputation. Of those, 14% (18 of 127) were treated with intercalary resection of the humeral diaphysis for primary bone tumors and reconstruction with VFG, with or without a bulk allograft, and were analyzed in this retrospective study. Generally, our indications for reconstruction with VFG are intercalary resection of the humerus for primary malignant or aggressive benign bone tumors in patients with long life expectancy and high functional demands, in whom adequate bone stock of the proximal and distal epiphysis can be preserved. In 13 patients, VFG was used alone, whereas in five patients, a massive allograft was used. Our policy was to use VFG combined with a massive allograft in patients undergoing juxta-articular joint-sparing resections in which proximal osteotomy was performed close to the anatomic neck of the humerus to obtain more stable fixation and better tendinous reattachment of the rotator cuff and deltoid. All 18 patients who were treated with a VFG were available for follow-up at a minimum of 2 years (median follow-up 176 months, range 26 to 275 months), and although three have not been seen in the past 5 years and are not known to have died, they had 172, 163, and 236 months of follow-up, and were included. The median age at surgery was 25 years (range 2 to 63 years), the median humeral resection length was 15 cm (range 8 to 21 cm), and the median fibular length was 16 cm (range 12 to 23 cm). Complications and functional scores were ascertained by chart review that was performed by an individual not involved in patient care. Functional results were assessed with the MSTS score (range 0 to 30), the ASES score (range 0 to 100), and the Constant score (range 0% to 100%). Survivorship was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survivorship estimator, which was suitable because there were few deaths in this series.

RESULTS

Seven patients underwent a revision procedure (one radial nerve transient palsy because of screw impingement, four nonunions in three patients with one humeral head avascular necrosis, treatment for screw-related pain in one patient, and two VFG fractures), and one patient underwent VFG removal. Donor site complications were observed in four patients (one ankle valgus deformity and three claw toes-the first toe in two patients and the other toes in the third). At the final clinical control, at a median follow-up of 176 months (range 26 to 275 months), the median MSTS score was 30 of 30 (range 28 to 30), the median ASES score was 98.3 (range 93 to 100), and the median Constant score was 93.5% (range 79% to 100%). Revision-free survival was 71% (95% CI 53% to 96%) at 5 years and 57% (95% CI 37% to 88%) at 10 and 15 years; VFG removal-free survival was 94% (95% CI 83% to 100%) at 5, 10, and 15 years.

CONCLUSION

VFG appears to be an effective reconstructive option after humeral intercalary resection for primary bone tumors. These are complex procedures and should be performed by an experienced team of surgeons who recognize that complications may occur frequently in the first years after the procedure. The frequency of mechanical complications observed in the first 5 years postoperatively may be lessened by using long spanning-plate fixation, and if successful, this reconstruction provides a long-term, durable reconstruction with excellent functional results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

What Is the Prosthetic Survival After Resection and Intercalary Endoprosthetic Reconstruction for Diaphyseal Bone Metastases of the Humerus and Femur?

BACKGROUND

Large metastatic lesions of the diaphysis can cause considerable pain and result in difficult surgical challenges. Resection and cemented intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction offer one solution to the problem, but it is an extensive operation that might not be tolerated well by a debilitated patient. The risk of aseptic loosening and revision after intercalary endoprosthetic replacement has varied in previous reports, which have not examined the risk of revision in the context of patient survival.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) In a small case series from one institution, what is the survivorship of patients after cemented intercalary endoprosthetic replacement for diaphyseal metastasis, and what is the cumulative incidence of revision for any reason? (2) What are the complications associated with cemented intercalary reconstruction? (3) What is the functional outcome after the procedure as assessed by the MSTS93 score?

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 19 patients with diaphyseal long bone metastases who were treated with resection and cemented intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction by five participating surgeons at one referral center from 2006 to 2017. There were 11 men and eight women with a median age of 59 years (range 46 to 80 years). The minimum follow-up required for this series was 12 months; however, patients who reached an endpoint (death, radiographic loosening, or implant revision) before that time were included. One of these 19 patients was lost to follow-up but was not known to have died. The median follow-up was 24 months (range 0 to 116 months). Eight of the 19 patients presented with pathologic fractures. Ten of 19 lesions involved the femur, and nine of 19 were in the humerus. The most common pathologic finding was renal cell carcinoma (in 10 of 19). Survival estimates of the patients were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A competing risks estimator was used to evaluate implant survival, using death of the patient as the competing risk. We also estimated the cumulative incidence of aseptic loosening in a competing risk analysis. Radiographs were analyzed for radiolucency at the bone-cement-implant interfaces, fracture, integrity of the cement mantle, and component position stability. Complications were assessed using record review that was performed by an individual who was not involved in the initial care of the patients. Functional outcomes were assessed using the MSTS93 scoring system.

RESULTS

Patient survivorship was 68% (95% CI 50% to 93%) at 1 year, 53% (95% CI 34% to 81%) at 2 years, and 14% (95% CI 4% to 49%) at 5 years; the median patient survival time after reconstruction was 25 months (range 0 to 116 months). In the competing risk analysis, using death as the competing risk, the cumulative incidence of implant revision was 11% (95% CI 2% to 29%) at 1 year and 16% (95% CI 4% to 36%) at 5 years after surgery; however, the cumulative incidence of aseptic loosening (with death as a competing risk) was 22% (95% CI 6% to 43%) at 1 year and 33% (95% CI 13% to 55%) at 5 years after surgery. Other complications included one patient who died postoperatively of cardiac arrest, one patient with delayed wound healing, two patients with bone recurrence, and one patient who experienced local soft tissue recurrence that was excised without implant revision. Total MSTS93 scores improved from a mean of 12.6 ± 8.1 (42% ± 27%) preoperatively to 21.5 ± 5.0 (72% ± 17%) at 3 months postoperatively (p < 0.001) and 21.6 ± 8.5 (72% ± 28%) at 2 years postoperatively (p = 0.98; 3 months versus 2 years).

CONCLUSION

Resection of diaphyseal metastases with intercalary reconstruction can provide stability and short-term improvement in function for patients with advanced metastatic disease and extensive cortical destruction. Aseptic loosening is a concern, particularly in the humerus; however, the competing risk analysis suggests the procedure is adequate for most patients, because many in this series died of disease without undergoing revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study .

Clinical efficacy of customized modular prosthesis in the treatment of femoral shaft metastases

Purpose

To examine clinical outcomes of a specialized modular prosthesis used to fill a bone deficiency following removal of femoral shaft metastases.

Methods

Eighteen patients with femoral shaft metastases who underwent en bloc resection and implantation of a personalized modular prosthesis between December 2014 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Pain, limb function, and quality of life were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS), Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scale, International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) scoring system, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scale, and Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) scale. The Kaplan–Meier technique was used to analyze patient survival.

Results

The operation duration was 90–150 min (mean, 115 min), and the osteotomy length was 9–16 cm (mean, 11.72 cm). The patients were followed for 12–62 months (mean, 25.28 months). The VAS and NHP ratings were lower at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery than before surgery, while the MSTS, ISOLS, and KPS scores were higher after surgery than they had been before. These differences were statistically significant (P&lt;0.05). The survival period was between 7 and 62 months (mean, 20.89 months), and the rates of survival at 1-year and 2-year were 72.22% and 27.78%, respectively. Except for two patients with aseptic prosthesis loosening during the follow-up period, there were no problems.

Conclusion

En bloc excision and implantation of a personalized modular prosthesis can reduce pain and improve the ability of patients with femoral shaft metastases to perform daily activities, thereby improving their quality of life.

Management of pain in patients with bone metastases

Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) has a considerable impact on patients’ quality of life as well as physical and mental health. At present, patients with CIBP are managed according to the three-step analgesic therapy algorithm proposed by the World Health Organization. Opioids are commonly used as the first-line treatment for moderate-to-severe cancer pain but are limited due to addiction, nausea, vomiting and other gastrointestinal side effects. Moreover, opioids have a limited analgesic effect in some patients. In order to optimize the management of CIBP, we must first identify the underlying mechanisms. In some patients, surgery, or surgery combined with radiotherapy or radiofrequency ablation is the first step in the management of CIBP. Various clinical studies have shown that anti-nerve growth factor (NGF) antibodies, bisphosphonates, or RANKL inhibitors can reduce the incidence and improve the management of cancer pain. Herein, we review the mechanisms of cancer pain and potential therapeutic strategies to provide insights for optimizing the management of CIBP.

Intramedullary Nailing Versus Plate Osteosynthesis for Humeral Shaft Metastatic Lesions

In the event of surgical management of metastases to the humeral shaft, intramedullary nailing (IMN) is often preferred to plate osteosynthesis (PO) fixation despite a lack of consensus. In this study, we hypothesized that plate osteosynthesis will be associated with better functional and pain outcomes, thus better quality of life. Eighteen patients with the diagnosis of humeral shaft metastatic fracture or impending fracture were extracted from a prospective database of 140 metastatic patients collected across three hospitals over a five-year period. Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS), Quality of Life (QOL) and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) score were gathered during the year following the surgery. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the mean score differences between the two surgical options at baseline and five follow-up visits. Both treatment options were associated with an increase in functional outcomes based on both MSTS and TESS, and a decrease in pain level. However, no significant difference was found in quality of life and between the two treatment modalities. Thus, based on our results, a similar improvement in functional status and pain level can be achieved surgically by either intramedullary nailing or plating osteosynthesis.