Replacement of the proximal humerus with MUTARS tumor endoprostheses

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.

Endoprosthesis vs. nail-cement spacer application for reconstruction after oncologic proximal humeral resection: is there a difference in functional outcome?

Background

The proximal humerus is a common site for primary malignant and benign aggressive bone tumors, necessitating wide resection and subsequent skeletal defect reconstruction. Various reconstruction options include osteoarticular allografts, autografts, endoprosthesis, nail-cement spacer, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, and allograft-prosthesis composites. However, there is no consensus on the optimal reconstruction method. This study aims to compare functional outcomes and complications between these two methods.

Methods

A total of 40 patients with proximal humerus tumors who underwent endoprosthesis or nail-cement spacer reconstruction between March 2012 and December 2020 were included. The mean follow-up in the study was 31.37 +/- 12 months. Demographic and clinical data were collected, and functional outcomes were assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 93 scoring system and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire. Complications and oncological outcomes were recorded.

Results

Both groups were similar in terms of demographic and clinical variables. Endoprosthesis reconstruction demonstrated significantly better active shoulder forward flexion compared to nail-cement spacer (45.8 vs. 25.2 degrees) (P = .015). Endoprosthesis group also exhibited greater active shoulder internal rotation (68.25 vs. 63.25 degrees) (P = .004). No statistically significant differences were observed in overall functional outcomes. Complications, including radial nerve palsy and infection, were comparable between groups, with one case of spacer loosening.

Conclusion

Both endoprosthesis and nail-cement spacer reconstruction provide comparable functional outcomes and complication rates following proximal humerus tumor resection. Nail-cement spacer offers a cost-effective alternative for patients in resource-constrained settings.

Poor clinical outcomes and high rates of dislocation after modular reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humeral oncologic resection

PURPOSE

The shoulder is the most common site for upper extremity tumors. The aim of the study was to analyze the outcomes and the complications of modular reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) after proximal humerus resection.

METHODS

We retrospectively included 15 consecutive patients who underwent a modular MUTARS™ RSA reconstruction after proximal humerus tumour resection between 2017 and 2020. The mean age was 52 years. Their clinical outcomes were assessed using the Constant-Murley score and the MSTS shoulder. Radiological outcomes were assessed based on the presence of loosening, osteolysis, and scapular notching. Complications such as dislocation, oncological recurrence, and infection were assessed. Mean follow-up time was 32.9 months (24 to 45).

RESULTS

The mean adjusted Constant score was 50.7% (min 22, max 81), and the mean MSTS score was 15.6 (min 4, max 26). We had no loosening, osteolysis, or scapular notching on the radiographs at last follow-up. We had a high complication rate of 53%: one infection, one oncological recurrence, and six dislocations (40%), of which five were re-operated.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, the MUTARS™ Implantcast™ modular RSA has poor functional results and a high rate of dislocation in the case of large proximal humerus resections below the distal insertion of the deltoid.

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.

Computer-aided Design and 3D-printed Personalized Stem-plate Composite for Precision Revision of the Proximal Humerus Endoprosthetic Replacement: A Technique Note

BACKGROUND

Aseptic loosening is considered to be a rather uncommon complication in proximal humerus endoprosthetic replacement (PHER). However, patients with aseptic loosening often suffer severe bone loss, which poses a great challenge in following revision. Under this situation, a standard stemmed endoprosthesis is unavailable for revision limb salvage. Computer-aided design and 3D-printed personalized implants are an emerging solution for reconstructing complex bone defects.

CASE PRESENTATION

Here, we present a 67-year-old male who underwent PHER after tumor resection and developed aseptic loosening with severe periprosthetic osteolysis around the stem. Computer-aided design and 3D-printed personalized stem-plate composite was used for the precision revision of this patient. During the follow-up, encouraging results were observed, with good endoprosthetic stability and satisfactory limb function.

CONCLUSION

Computer-aid design and 3D-printed personalized stem-plate composite used in the present case could help to achieve good endoprosthetic stability and satisfactory limb function. This 3D-printed personalized stem-plate composite seems to be an effective method for the precise revision of PHER in patients with severe periprosthetic osteolysis. In addition, it also provides a novel method for similar revision surgery of other joints or primary endoprosthetic replacement with severe bone defects.

Reconstruction with a double-constrained implant design after complex shoulder extra-articular resection

BACKGROUND

Approximately, one-third of patients with tumors of proximal humerus will require an extra-articular resection to achieve oncologic margins. This procedure yields poor functional outcomes with a considerable rate of revisions. Unconstrained implants are prone to instability hindering also function of the elbow and hand, whereas constrained shoulder reconstructions suffer from early aseptic loosening of the glenoid component due to bone overload. The purpose of this study was to develop a constrained implant suitable for extra-articular resection with loss of function in deltoid and rotator cuff, which would provide both stability and passive motion, whilst also decreasing the risk of aseptic loosening of the glenoid component.

METHODS

In cooperation with Czech Technical University in Prague, we devised an implant consisting of two constrained joints in series connected by a dumbbell piece. The biomechanical analysis showed a reduction of load transfer to the glenoid component with a torque of 8.6 Nm capable of generating an 865-N pulling force on bone screw to just 0.07 Nm, hence shielding the glenoid component from undesired forces and decreasing the risk of aseptic loosening. Three patients with extra-articular resection with a total loss of function of both rotator cuff and deltoid muscle received this type of reconstruction. The average follow-up was 16 months.

RESULTS

The surgical technique is straightforward. The surgery took 175 min on average with average blood loss of 516 ml. There were no surgical- or implant-related complications. All three patients were pain-free and had a stable shoulder joint after the reconstruction. All had fully functional elbow, wrist, and hand joints. The average Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 21/30 (70%). All patients were pleased with the results.

CONCLUSION

The presented innovative implant design has demonstrated to be a promising alternative for reconstruction in these challenging cases.

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.

Complex Functional Posttraumatic Shoulder Reconstruction Using Shoulder Arthroplasty and a Pedicled Innervated Latissimus Dorsi Flap-A Case Report and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The shoulder joint is one of the most freely movable joints in the human body and has therefore high importance for upper limb functionality. Several techniques have been developed to replace the glenohumeral joint including humeral hemiarthroplasty, anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, depending on the underlying pathology. For the soft tissue reconstruction, the innervated latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap is a reliable solution flap in shoulder and arm reconstruction.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present the case of a 16-year-old male patient with a complete destruction of the shoulder joint and soft tissues after ballistic trauma. We performed the reconstruction of the shoulder joint using a humeral hemiarthroplasty with a mesh fixation to the remaining glenoid. The soft tissue coverage and the restoration of the deltoid muscle function were insured with a pedicled innervated latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap. One year postoperatively, the patient showed a good function of the shoulder joint with an excellent aesthetical result and no pain.

CONCLUSION

The pedicled latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap can safely restore the shoulder function, while the humeral hemiarthroplasty with mesh fixation can be a reliable solution for the reconstruction of a completely destructed shoulder joint.

Total humerus replacement with reverse shoulder design for non-oncologic indication: A case report

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Reconstruction of large skeletal defects pose significant challenges for orthopedic surgeons, particularly in cases of chronic skeletal defects where the surrounding structures differ substantially from the original anatomical structures, further complicating management.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 54 year old male patient presented with a large skeletal defect after osteomyelitis surgery. The treatment of choice for this case was reconstruction using a total humerus megaprosthesis. The prosthesis was custom-designed with a reversed shoulder joint and a total elbow joint, which were 3D printed using CT-Scan imaging.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

A short-term follow-up revealed improvements for the patient in arm functionality and expectation-based satisfaction at 6 months post-surgery.

CONCLUSION

Total humerus megaprosthesis joint replacement may be a promising option for treating chronic humeral defects.

Use of LARS for soft tissue function reconstruction during tumor-type hemi-shoulder replacement achieves a good prognosis: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Shoulder soft tissue function reconstruction during tumor-type hemishoulder replacement is an important step to restore shoulder function. This study evaluates the functional prognosis and postoperative complications of ligament advanced reinforcement system (LARS)-assisted soft tissue functional reconstruction in tumor-type hemi-shoulder replacement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-two patients with an average age of 37.5 ± 17.8 years diagnosed with benign invasive tumors, primary malignant bone tumors, or bone metastases were enrolled in this study. The patient's medical records (history and surgical details), histological sections, imaging files, oncological prognosis, functional prognosis, and postoperative complications were collected. The upper limb function and shoulder joint function were evaluated using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) system and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scoring criteria, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients comprising 12 males and 10 females were enrolled. Overall, 9 patients had preoperative pathological fractures. The mean lesion length was 8.6 ± 3.0 cm. The local recurrence was observed in 3 cases, including 2 cases of osteosarcoma and 1 case of MGCT. A further 4 cases had pulmonary metastasis, including 2 cases with local tumor recurrence. The average postoperative MSTS score was 25.8 ± 1.7, and the score of postoperative ASES was 85.7 ± 6.0, both of which showed satisfactory functional recovery. Two cases experienced postoperative complications requiring surgical intervention, including one periprosthetic fracture and one giant cell granuloma. Prosthesis dislocation occurred in 1 case. None of the cases of periprosthetic infection or postoperative complications resulted in implant failure.

CONCLUSIONS

LARS-assisted soft tissue function reconstruction in benign and malignant proximal humerus tumors after a tumor-type hemi-shoulder replacement is an effective technical improvement, which can effectively repair the integrity of the joint capsule to restore joint stability, provide a medium for soft tissue attachment to rebuild the muscular dynamic system, and eliminate residual dead space around the prosthesis, effectively improving limb function and reduce postoperative infection complications.

Management of Proximal Humeral Oncologic Lesions

The proximal humerus is a common location for primary tumors, benign lesions, and metastatic disease. Advances in neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy have allowed for limb-salvage surgery in most of the cases. There are numerous of options for surgical management of proximal humerus lesions and the decision to pursue one over another depends on factors such as age, comorbidities, pathology, location within the proximal humerus, planned resection margins/size of defect, and bone quality. Long-term outcomes for these techniques tend to be retrospective comparative studies, with recent studies highlighting the improved outcomes of reverse total shoulders.

Prosthetic Reconstruction of the Shoulder After Resection of Proximal Humerus Bone Tumor

Prosthetic reconstruction after wide resection of tumors of the proximal humerus presents a unique challenge. The shoulder is a complex articulation, and patients have high expectations for postoperative function. The goal of this study is to compare functional outcomes, oncologic outcomes, and complication rates for 2 reconstructive methods. Forty patients with proximal humeral tumors were reviewed retrospectively. Proximal humeral endoprosthesis (PHE) was used for 21 patients, and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) was used for 19 patients. Clinical results, oncologic outcomes, and complication rates were assessed. The functional outcomes of the patients were assessed with the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scoring system (MSTS), the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score, and shoulder range of motion. The mean follow-up was 62±15 months. Shoulder dislocations occurred among 8 patients with PHE and 1 patient with RSA (P=.021). The other complication rates were similar for the 2 groups (P<.05). At the latest follow-up, the mean MSTS score was 68±10.3 for those with PHE and 76±7.7 for the patients with RSA (P=.72). However, the QuickDASH score was significantly better (P=.031) for those with RSA (mean, 19±6.3) compared with patients with PHE (mean, 30±4.8). Additionally, shoulder active abduction and forward flexion were significantly greater for the RSA group (P=.04 and P=.03, respectively). Five patients had local recurrence. Prosthetic reconstruction after oncologic re-section of the proximal humerus is associated with significant limitation of shoulder range of motion and a high rate of revision surgery. However, in this study, RSA was associated with fewer dislocations, improved Quick-DASH score, and greater abduction and forward flexion compared with PHE. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(6):e335-e341.].

Anatomical and reverse megaprosthesis in proximal humerus reconstructions after oncologic resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Anatomic (AN) Endoprosthesis (EPR) reconstructions of the shoulder after intra-articular proximal humerus (Malawer type 1) resections are characterized by early recovery and low complications rate. However, shoulder instability and limited mobility can occur. Reverse shoulder (RS) EPR has been introduced to improve functional outcome. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate shoulder reconstructions with AN or RS EPR after Malawer type 1 resection, comparing complications and functional results.

METHODS

Through an electronic systematic search of PubMed, articles concerning EPR after shoulder Malawer type 1 resections were reviewed. Complications rate, range of motion (ROM) and functional outcome (Musculoskeletal Society Tumor Society-MSTS score) of AN and RS EPR were evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included. A similar complication rate was observed between AN and RS EPR rate (26.4% and 22.4%, respectively, p = 0.37). Soft tissue failure was the most frequent complication and cause of revision in both groups. Mean post-operative flexion and abduction ROM and MSTS scores were significantly higher in RS EPR, particularly among patients with preserved deltoid function (p = 0.013, p = 0.025 and p = 0.005, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomic and reverse shoulder EPR represent safe and effective implants for shoulder reconstruction, with similar implant stability and complication rates. RS EPR significantly improves post-operative ROM and functional outcomes, especially when at least a partial function of the abductor apparatus is preserved.

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.

Efficacy and safety of a 3D-printed arthrodesis prosthesis for reconstruction after resection of the proximal humerus: preliminary outcomes with a minimum 2-year follow-up

Background

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using a three-dimensional (3D)-printed arthrodesis prosthesis for reconstruction of the proximal humeral defect after tumor resection.

Methods

A novel proximal humeral prosthesis was designed to restore bone continuity and shoulder arthrodesis and was fabricated via 3D printing technology. Ten patients with primary malignancies in the proximal humerus underwent intra-articular resection and replacement with this prosthesis from 2017 to 2019. Baseline and operative data, oncological and prosthetic survival, and functional status were summarized.

Results

This cohort consisted of 9 males and 1 female with a mean age of 32.1 ± 16.1 years. Diagnoses included 5 cases of osteosarcoma, 3 cases of chondrosarcoma and 1 each case of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma and malignant myoepithelioma. The mean operative duration, intraoperative hemorrhage and postoperative length of hospitalization were 151.5 ± 61.0 min, 410.0 ± 353.4 ml and 5.3 ± 1.9 d, respectively. The mean follow-up duration was 29.3 ± 6.4 months, with a minimum of 24 months for the surviving patients. Two patients experienced local recurrence, and four patients developed distant metastases. Detachment of the taper occurred in two patients. One was managed conservatively, and the other received amputation due to concurrent tumor recurrence. The mean MSTS-93 and ASES scores and ranges of forwards flexion and abduction were 24.9 ± 3.1, 79.4 ± 8.3, 71.3 ± 19.4°, and 61.3 ± 16.4°, respectively. The functional outcomes were independent of the preservation of the axillary nerve. Histological study of the glenoid component showed evidence of bone ingrowth at the bone-prosthesis porous interface.

Conclusion

Application of the 3D-printed arthrodesis prosthesis might be a safe and efficacious method for functional reconstruction in patients who underwent resection of the proximal humerus, especially for those without preservation of the axillary nerve.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05581-6.

The Use of Tumor Prostheses for Primary or Revision Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With Proximal Humeral Bone Loss

Background

During shoulder arthroplasty with substantial bone and soft tissue loss, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with a tumor prosthesis may restore function, reduce pain, and improve implant fixation.

Methods

Thirteen adult patients undergoing RSA using a tumor prosthesis system were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative visual analog score (VAS), single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, simple shoulder test (SST), and forward flexion were compared to latest follow up. Postoperative radiographs and complications were recorded.

Results

Mean age at surgery was 68.4 years. Eight patients had undergone at least 1 prior operation on the indicated shoulder. Six patients required wide excision of proximal humerus tumor. At mean of 34 months postoperatively, significant improvements were noted in VAS (P = .03) and ASES score (P = .04). Active forward elevation was 81.1 degrees. For all patients, postoperative radiographs demonstrated satisfactory alignment. Complications occurred in 38% of patients, with 31% requiring reoperation.

Conclusion

In cases of failed shoulder arthroplasty with excessive bone and soft tissue loss or substantial tumor burden, RSA with a tumor prosthesis can reduce pain levels and improve functional outcomes. However, forward elevation remains limited, and postoperative complications are a concern.

Allograft prosthetic composite reconstruction using a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed oncologic proximal humerus reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Endoprosthetic or allograft reconstruction are the preferred reconstruction techniques for proximal humeral bone tumors. Failure of these reconstructions may occur, but historically revision is performed rarely due to the lack of reliable options. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with an allograft prosthetic composite (rAPC) may provide a revision option. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate our institutional outcome of these procedures.

METHODS

Eleven (6 male, 5 female) patients (mean age 51 ± 17 years) underwent revision of a failed oncologic reconstruction of the proximal humerus utilizing a rAPC. The most common indication for revision was subluxation (n = 6) and the most common previous implant was an endoprosthesis (n = 5).

RESULTS

Revision resulted in improvements in shoulder elevation (39° vs. 62°, p = 0.02), external rotation (13° vs. 25°, p = 0.04), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (39 vs. 58, p = 0.004) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scores (51% vs 69%, p = 0.002). There were 2 re-revision procedures performed. One for an allograft fracture and one for allograft resorption and loosening.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision with a rAPC can effectively restore patient function. Due to the complexity of the cases, we advocate for these procedures to be performed by subspecialty upper extremity surgeons trained in complex revision shoulder arthroplasty.

Periprosthetic Stress Shielding of the Humerus after Reconstruction with Modular Shoulder Megaprostheses in Patients with Sarcoma

(1) Background: Modular megaprosthetic reconstruction using a proximal humerus replacement has emerged as a commonly chosen approach after bone tumor resection. However, the long-term risk for revision surgery is relatively high. One factor that might be associated with mechanical failures is periprosthetic osteolysis around the stem, also known as stress shielding. The frequency, potential risk factors, and the effect on implant survival are unknown. (2) Methods: A retrospective single-center study of 65 patients with sarcoma who underwent resection of the proximal humerus and subsequent reconstruction with a modular endoprosthesis. Stress shielding was defined as the development of bone resorption around the prosthesis stem beginning at the bone/prosthesis interface. The extent of stress shielding was measured with a new method quantifying bone resorption in relation to the intramedullary stem length. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 12 months with conventional radiographs available and the median follow-up amounted to 36 months. (3) Results: Stress shielding was observed in 92% of patients (60/65). The median longitudinal extent of stress shielding amounted to 14% at last follow-up. Fifteen percent (10/65) showed bone resorption of greater than 50%. The median time to the first radiographic signs of stress shielding was 6 months (IQR 3–9). Patients who underwent chemotherapy (43/65) showed a greater extent of stress shielding compared to those without chemotherapy. Three percent (2/65) of patients were revised for aseptic loosening, and one patient had a periprosthetic fracture (1/65, 1.5%). All these cases had >20% extent of stress shielding (23–57%). (4) Conclusions: Stress shielding of the proximal humerus after shoulder reconstruction with modular megaprosthesis is common. It occurs within the first year of follow-up and might be self-limiting in many patients; however, about one third of patients shows progression beyond the first year. Still, mechanical complications were rare, but stress shielding might be clinically relevant in individual cases. The extent of stress shielding was increased in patients who underwent perioperative chemotherapy. Stress shielding can be quantified with an easy method using the stem length as a reference.

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.

Mesh patch and anchors can improve clinical results of prosthetic replacement after resection of primary proximal humerus malignant tumor

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional results, complications and related factors of prosthesis reconstruction after malignant tumor resection of primary proximal humeral, and also evaluate whether soft tissue reconstruction with mesh patch and anchors can improve clinical results. From 2002 to 2016, forty-one patients were enrolled in this study. The pathological diagnosis contained 27 cases of osteosarcoma, 7 cases of chondrosarcoma and other primary malignant bone tumors. Both mesh patch and anchors were used in the reconstruction of joint capsule and the surrounding soft tissues in 27 cases. The mean postoperative follow-up was 60.6 months. The average active abduction angle and passive abduction angle was 33.5 (5–71) degrees and 72.4 (52–104) degrees. The prosthetic humeral head displacement was over 2 cm in 5 cases (12.2%). The average MSTS score was 23.1. The overall 5-year survival rate of prosthesis was 88.2%. The length of osteotomy, whether preserving deltoid muscle, whether applying mesh patch and anchors had significant effects on the abduction angle of shoulder joint; the length of osteotomy, whether applying mesh patch and anchors had significant effects on the degree of upward displacement of prosthesis. The application of both mesh patch and anchors in prosthesis reconstruction achieved more stable result and better function of shoulder joint. To ensure the stability of shoulder joint and the firm wrapping of surrounding soft tissue are key factors affecting the postoperative function.

Humeral stress shielding following cemented endoprosthetic reconstruction: An under-reported complication?

INTRODUCTION

The proximal humerus is a common location for primary and non-primary tumors. Reconstruction of the proximal humerus is commonly performed with an endoprosthesis with low rates of structural failure. The incidence and risk factors for stress shielding are under reported.

METHODS

Thirty-nine (19 male, 20 female) patients underwent resection of the proximal humerus and reconstruction with a cemented modular endoprosthesis between 2000 and 2018. The mean resection length was 12 ± 4 cm and was most commonly performed for metastatic disease (n = 26, 67%).

RESULTS

Stress shielding was observed in 9 (23%) patients at a mean of 29 (6-132) months postoperatively. Patients with stress shielding were noted to have shorter intramedullary stem length (87 vs. 107 mm, p < .001), longer extramedullary implant length (16 vs. 14 cm, p = .01) and a higher extramedullary implant to stem length ratio (2.1 vs. 1.1, p < .001). The incidence of stress shielding was higher (p = .003) in patients reconstructed with 75 mm stem (n = 6, 67%) lengths.

CONCLUSION

Stress shielding of the humerus was associated with the use of shorter stems and long extramedullary implants. The long-term ramifications of stress shielding on implant stability, complications at the time of revision surgery, and overall patient outcomes remain unknown.

Comparison of reconstructive techniques following oncologic intraarticular resection of proximal humerus

INTRODUCTION

The proximal humerus is a common site of primary and metastatic disease in the upper extremity. Historically, the goal of a hemiarthroplasty reconstruction was to provide a stable platform for hand and elbow function, with limited shoulder function. Techniques utilizing a reverse endoprosthesis (endoprosthetic replacement [EPR]) and allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) have been developed; however, there is a paucity of comparative studies.

METHODS

A total of 83 (42 females, 41 males) patients undergoing an intraarticular resection of the humerus were reviewed. Reconstructions included 30 reverse and 53 hemiarthroplasty; including hemiarthroplasty EPR (n = 36) and APC (n = 17), and reverse EPR (n = 20) and APC (n = 10).

RESULTS

Reverse reconstructions had improved forward elevation (85° vs. 44°, p < .001) and external rotation (30° vs. 21°; p < .001) versus a hemiarthroplasty. Reverse reconstructions had improved American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (65 vs. 57; p = .01) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 93 scores (72 vs. 63; p < .001) versus hemiarthroplasty. Subluxation of the reconstruction was a common (n = 23, 27%), only occurring in hemiarthroplasty patients (EPR [n = 13, 36%] and APC [n = 10, 59%]).

CONCLUSION

The current series highlights the improved functional outcome in patients undergoing reconstruction with a reverse arthroplasty compared to the traditional hemiarthroplasty. Currently reverse shoulder arthroplasty (APC or EPR) is our preferred methods of reconstruction in this patient population.

Constrained or unconstrained shoulder replacement for musculoskeletal tumor resections?

BACKGROUND

Many options exist for reconstructing the shoulder after large bony resections of the proximal humerus. One of the more widely used is endoprosthetic replacement. Proximal migration of unconstrained hemiarthroplasty articulations may cause difficulties particularly in the setting of loss of the rotator cuff and/or deltoid musculature. To attempt to overcome these issues, a fixed-fulcrum constrained reverse shoulder replacement option may be considered.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Queensland Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcoma Service was undertaken to compare the function, implant survivorship, and reoperation rate of constrained reverse and unconstrained hemiarthroplasty-type endoprostheses in patients with tumors.

RESULTS

We retrospectively reviewed data on 41 consecutive proximal or total humeral endoprosthetic replacements undertaken between January 2003 and July 2018. One patient was excluded as lost to follow-up prior to 24 months. There were 21 unconstrained implants and 19 constrained shoulder replacements (Stanmore Modular Endoprosthesis Tumour System with Bayley-Walker articulation). Proximal migration of the unconstrained hemiarthroplasty articulation occurred in 8 patients (38%), and dislocation or failure of the constrained mechanism occurred in 5 (26%). Reoperation for implant-related issues was required in 5 patients in the constrained group and none in the unconstrained group. Of the 18 patients alive at the time of review, 12 provided functional scores. The mean follow-up period for surviving patients was 4.2 years (standard deviation, 2.7 years), with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Functional scores were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Constrained reverse prostheses were associated with a higher reoperation rate in this series without any functional benefit compared with unconstrained hemiarthroplasty-type articulations. We favor the use of unconstrained hemiarthroplasty-type endoprostheses for reconstruction after resection of destructive lesions of the proximal humerus.

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.

Is the Clavicula Pro Humero Technique of Value for Reconstruction After Resection of the Proximal Humerus in Children?

BACKGROUND

There are several options for reconstruction of proximal humerus resections after wide resection for malignant tumors in children. The clavicula pro humero technique is a biologic option that has been used in the past, but there are only scant case reports and small series that comment on the results of the procedure. Because the longevity of children mandates a reconstruction with potential longevity not likely to be achieved by other techniques, the clavicula pro humero technique may be a potential option in selected patients.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) How successful is the clavicula pro humero procedure in achieving local tumor control? (2) What is the frequency of nonunion? (3) What are the complications of the procedure? (4) What scores do patients achieve (on the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) after this procedure?

METHODS

Four university hospitals performed the clavicula pro humero technique in eight children aged 8 to 18 years between June 2006 and February 2014. During that period, general indications for this approach included all reconstructions of the proximal humerus for malignant tumors in children older than 8 years. All patients were followed for a mean of 40 months (range, 25-86 months); one patient was lost to followup before 2 years. The tumor resections removed the rotator cuff muscles in all patients, glenohumeral joint in five, and deltoid muscle in three. The median length of the bone defect after resection was 20 cm (range, 7-25 cm). It was reduced to 9 cm (range, 0-17 cm) or 27% (range, 0%-64%) of the total humerus length after clavicular rotation. Direct osteosynthesis (one patient), induced membrane technique (one patient), or vascularized fibular autograft (six patients) was used to complete the defect after rotation of the clavicle if necessary. Presence of union (defined as bone healing before 10 months, as assessed by disappearance of the osteotomy on AP and lateral view radiographs), and complications were determined by chart review performed by a surgeon not involved in patient care. Function assessed by the MSTS and the TESS scores were determined by the patients with their families.

RESULTS

None of the patients had tumor recurrence. One patient died of pulmonary metastases before the 2-year followup. Proximal and distal bone unions were achieved before 10 months without an additional surgical procedure in two and six of seven patients, respectively. Fourteen local complications occurred resulting in nine revision operations. The main complication was aseptic proximal pseudarthrosis (five patients); other complications included one proximal junction fracture, one clavicle fracture complicated by clavicle osteolysis, one distal junction fracture, one necrosis of the skin paddle of the fibular autograft, one glenoclavicular ossification, and one distal pseudarthrosis complicated by a fracture of this distal junction. Function, as assessed by the MSTS score, was a median of 23 of 30 (range, 11-27). The median TESS score was 82% (range, 75%-92%). Shoulder ROM (median; range) in abduction, front elevation, and external and internal rotations were 70°(30°-90°), 75°(30°-85°), 10°(0°-20°), and 80°(80°-100°), respectively. Three of the seven patients reported dissatisfaction with the cosmetic appearance.

CONCLUSIONS

The clavicula pro humero technique achieved oncologic local control after resection and reconstruction of proximal humerus tumors in children. Although union times are approximately 2 years and some patients underwent augmentation with other grafts, it eventually provides a solid, painless, biologic, and stable reconstruction and creates a mobile acromioclavicular joint and generally good function. Nonunion of the proximal junction is the main complication of this technique. We cannot directly compare this technique with other reconstruction options, and longer followup is needed, but this may be a useful reconstruction option to consider in select pediatric patients with sarcomas of the proximal humerus.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Use of Compressive Osseointegration Endoprostheses for Massive Bone Loss From Tumor and Failed Arthroplasty: A Viable Option in the Upper Extremity

BACKGROUND

Endoprostheses using principles of compressive osseointegration have shown good survivorship in several studies involving the lower extremity; however, no series to our knowledge have documented the use of this technology in the management of massive bone loss in the upper limb.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What proportion of upper extremity implants using compressive osseointegration fixation principles achieved durable short-term fixation, and what were the modes of failure? (2) What surgical complications resulted from reconstruction using this technique?

METHODS

A multiinstitutional retrospective review identified nine patients (five women; four men) who underwent 13 endoprosthetic replacements between 2003 and 2014 using compressive osseointegration (Compliant^® Pre-stress Device [CPS]; Biomet Inc, Warsaw, IN, USA) in the upper extremity, including two proximal humeri, two humeral diaphyses, seven distal humeri, and two proximal ulna. During the early part of that period, the indication for use of a compressive prosthesis in our centers was revision of a previous tumor reconstruction (allograft-prosthetic composite or stemmed endoprosthetic reconstruction) (three patients; five implants), or revision arthroplasty with massive bone loss (three patients, four implants); more recently, indications became somewhat more permissive and included posttraumatic bone loss (one patient, one implant), primary bone sarcoma, and resections with very short remaining end segments after diaphyseal resections (two patients, three implants). Minimum followup was 24 months; one patient (one implant) was lost to followup before that time with the implant intact at 14 months and no patients have died. The mean age of the patients was 45 years (range, 21-62 years). Mean followup was 68 months (range, 24-141 months). Implant revision for any cause and for failure of the CPS mechanism was recorded. Modes of failure were categorized as soft tissue, aseptic loosening, structural, infection, and tumor progression; CPS modes of failure were defined as lack of fixation, with or without bone or implant fracture.

RESULTS

Of the 12 implants accounted for beyond 2 years, six had undergone revision of any kind. Only two revisions in two patients were attributable to lack of CPS fixation at the bone-implant interface; one of the patients also had periprosthetic and implant fracture develop through the traction bar. Other modes of failure were aseptic loosening of the standard ulnar component (two patients, two implants), bushing wear (one patient; one implant) and infection resulting in two-stage exchange and free soft tissue transfer with retention of the CPS spindle (one patient, one implant). Complications for all nine patients included one transient radial nerve palsy, one ulnar nerve sensory neurapraxia, one superficial infection, and two glenohumeral subluxations, one underwent revision surgery with implantation of a constrained liner.

CONCLUSIONS

A compressive osseointegration endoprosthesis is an option for very difficult revisions or sarcoma resection in the upper extremity in which the remaining segment of host bone is too short for a conventional prosthesis. However, surgeons must inform patients that these are salvage operations, and revision surgery is common. Long-term followup of more patients is necessary to further document the survivorship of these implants in the upper extremity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

What is the Optimal Reconstruction Option after the Resection of Proximal Humeral Tumors? A Systematic Review

Purpose:

The proximal humerus is a common location for both primary and metastatic bone tumors. There are numerous reconstruction options after surgical resection. There is no consensus on the ideal method of reconstruction.

Methods:

A systematic review was performed with a focus on the surgical reconstructive options for lesions involving the proximal humerus.

Results:

A total of 50 articles and 1227 patients were included for analysis. Reoperation rates were autograft arthrodesis (11%), megaprosthesis (10%), RSA (17%), hemiarthroplasty (26%), and osteoarticular allograft (34%). Mechanical failure rates, including prosthetic loosening, fracture, and dislocation, were highest in allograft-containing constructs (APC, osteoarticular allograft, arthrodesis) followed by arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, RSA, megaprosthesis) and lowest for autografts (vascularized fibula, autograft arthrodesis). Infections involving RSA (9%) were higher than hemiarthroplasty (0%) and megaprosthesis (4%).

Postoperative function as measured by MSTS score were similar amongst all prosthetic options, ranging from 66% to 74%, and claviculo pro humeri (CPH) was slightly better (83%). Patients were generally limited to active abduction of approximately 45° and no greater than 90°. With resection of the rotator cuff, deltoid muscle or axillary nerve, function and stability were compromised even further. If the rotator cuff was sacrificed but the deltoid and axillary nerve preserved, active forward flexion and abduction were superior with RSA.

Discussion:

Various reconstruction techniques for the proximal humerus lead to relatively similar functional results. Surgical choice should be tailored to anatomic defect and functional requirements.

Silver-coated endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal humerus in case of tumour-is there an increased risk of periprosthetic infection by using a trevira tube?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to evaluate if there is an increased risk of periprosthetic infection (PJI) in patients following replacement of the proximal humerus by using a modular tumour prosthesis in combination with a trevira tube.

METHODS

Thirty patients were treated by using a modular tumour endoprosthesis (MUTARS®) following intra-articular resection of the proximal humerus. Fifteen patients received treatment by using a trevira tube. In 15 further cases the use of a trevira tube was not necessary. The mean follow-up time was 26 months (range: 24 months to 84 months). Both, Enneking score and range of motion (ROM), was evaluated. Further radiographs were obtained in two planes.

RESULTS

The survival rate one year after surgery was 83 % and 63 % after two years. We recorded a 96 % survival of the limb two years after surgery. We also observed only one case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the entire follow-up period in one patient who received treatment with a trevira tube. The mean Enneking score was 20 points (range 8 to 26 points). ROM was equal in both study groups. In total 20 % of the treated patients (n = 6) suffered complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Replacement of the proximal humerus by using a trevira tube in combination with a modular tumour endoprosthesis is a safe and viable treatment option for both, bone tumours and metastases. There is no statistically significant increased risk of infection by using trevira tube even among immunosuppressed patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3, retrospective comparative study.

Intramedullary Nailing for Pathological Fractures of the Proximal Humerus

BACKGROUND

Endoprosthetic reconstruction is widely applied for pathological fractures of the proximal humerus; however, functional impairment is usually unsatisfactory. The aims of the current study are to evaluate the reliability of interlocking intramedullary (IM) nailing with cement augmentation as a fixation method in proximal humeral lesions and to assess functional outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed 32 patients with pathological fractures of the proximal humerus who underwent interlocking IM nailing and cement augmentation. Functional scores and pain relief were assessed as outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 14.2 months. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional score and Karnofsky performance status scale score were 27.7 and 75.6, respectively. Improvement of pain assessed using the visual analogue scale was 6.2 on average. Thirty-one patients (97%) experienced no pain after surgery. The mean ranges of forward flexion and abduction were 115° and 112.6°, respectively. All patients achieved stability and had no local recurrence without failure of fixation until the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Proximal interlocking IM nailing with cement augmentation appears to be a reliable treatment option for pathological or impending fractures of the proximal humerus in selected patients with metastatic tumors, even with extensive bone destruction.

Load and failure behavior of human muscle samples in the context of proximal femur replacement

BACKGROUND

To ensure adequate function after orthopedic tumor reconstruction, it is important to reattach the remaining soft tissue to the implant. This study aimed at obtaining mechanical properties of textile muscle-implant and muscle-bone connections in a preliminary test.

METHODS

Two groups of soft-tissue attachment were mechanically tested and compared: Native bone-muscle samples obtained from human femora and muscles attached to a prosthetic implant by means of Trevira® attachment tubes. Additionally, muscle samples were tested with muscle fibers aligned parallel and perpendicular to the tension load. A uniaxial load was exerted upon all samples.

RESULTS

Failure loads of 26.7 ± 8.8 N were observed for the native bone-muscle group and of 18.1 ± 9.9 N for the Trevira® group. Elongations of 94.8 ± 36.2 % were observed for the native bone-muscle group and 79.3 ± 51.8 % for the Trevira® group. The location of failure was mainly observed in the central area of the muscle fibers. Muscle fibers with parallel fiber orientation (47.6 ± 11.5 N) yielded higher tensile strength than those with perpendicular fiber orientation (14.8 ± 4.1 N).

CONCLUSIONS

Our experiments showed that higher forces were transmitted in the origin and insertion areas than in areas of flat soft tissue reconstruction using attachment tubes. The data indicate that the tested material allows reattaching muscles, but without reinforcing the insertion site. Therefore, attachment tubes with region-dependent and potentially anisotropic material behavior might be advantageous to optimize muscle-bone load transmission after surgery, which may allow lower complication rates and shorter physical recovery.

Functional outcome of reverse shoulder tumor prosthesis in the treatment of proximal humerus tumors

BACKGROUND

The treatment of proximal humerus tumors with reverse shoulder arthroplasty with allograft augmentation is still controversial. A tumor prosthesis represents a proven solution for such osseous defects. We investigated the functional results of patients who underwent reverse shoulder tumor prosthesis (RSTP) without the use of allograft after resection of a proximal humerus tumor.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 10 patients with malignant proximal humerus tumors who had undergone RSTP, with a mean follow-up period of 18.2 months (range, 6-27 months). The average age of the patients was 49.4 years. The mean resection length was 10.2 cm (range, 6-16 cm). The tumor prosthesis was preferred for the humeral component. Released rotator cuff muscles were reattached to the prosthesis with nonabsorbable sutures.

RESULTS

The mean active forward flexion was 96° (range, 30°-160°), the mean active abduction was 88° (range, 30°-160°), and the mean active external rotation was 13° (range, 0°-20°). The mean Constant-Murley score was 53.7%. The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score was 26.2. The mean visual analog scale score was 1.3. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 78.1%. None of our patients have shown local recurrence or infection signs in the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Functionally satisfying results and a stable shoulder can be achieved by reverse shoulder arthroplasty without the need for an allograft. An intact abductor mechanism with a shorter resection humerus length produced good results. The treatment of malignant proximal humerus tumors with RSTP is an alternative that minimizes surgery time and complexity.

New endoprosthesis suspension method with polypropylene monofilament knitted mesh after resection of bone tumors in proximal humerus

BACKGROUND

Endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus is one of the standard procedures after resection of tumors of the proximal humerus and has been considered a reliable method to reconstruct the proximal humerus in recent reports. However, instability of the shoulder joint caused by loss of the rotator cuff and deltoid muscle function is often observed after such an endoprosthetic reconstruction.

METHODS

We performed the endoprosthesis suspension method with polypropylene monofilament knitted mesh. This suspension method, by which the endoprosthesis is suspended from the bone structure, was used after resection of tumors in 9 patients. We assessed postoperative stability of the shoulder joint by comparing these patients with 12 patients who underwent the conventional surgical technique, by which the mesh-wrapped endoprosthesis is attached only to soft tissue.

RESULTS

In radiographic and physical evaluation, 4 of the 12 patients in the soft tissue reconstruction group showed shoulder joint instability. No patient in the suspension method group showed subluxation of the humeral prosthesis. The mean shoulder flexion was 35° and 65° and the mean shoulder abduction was 40° and 40° for the soft tissue reconstruction group and the suspension method group, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Shoulder joint subluxation sometimes occurs because of elongation of the attached soft tissue in the conventional reconstruction with mesh, whereas no shoulder joint subluxation occurs after endoprosthetic reconstruction in the suspension method because the bone structure has no leeway for elongation. Excellent stability of our new method enables exercise of the surgical shoulder at an early stage, leading to improved range of shoulder joint motion.

Synthetic mesh improves shoulder function after intraarticular resection and prosthetic replacement of proximal humerus

BACKGROUND

Shoulder function often is limited after tumor resection and endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal humerus. This is partly attributable to the inability to reliably reattach rotator cuff tendons to the prosthesis and achieve adequate shoulder capsule repair with a metallic prosthesis. An option to attain these goals is to use synthetic mesh for the reconstruction, although the value of this method has not been well documented in the literature.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked whether patients who had shoulder reconstruction using synthetic mesh had (1) better shoulder function; (2) improved ROM compared with shoulder reconstructions without mesh; and (3) more stable joints compared with those in patients with similar resections who had reconstructions without synthetic mesh.

METHODS

During a 5-year period, we performed 41 intraarticular resections with endoprosthetic reconstructions for malignancies in the proximal humerus meeting specified criteria to generate similarity in the study groups. Twelve patients (29%) were lost to followup before 24 months, leaving 29 patients available for review at a mean of 45 months (range, 24-70 months). This retrospective study compared 14 patients with soft tissue reconstruction that included synthetic mesh with 15 patients with soft tissue reconstruction without the use of synthetic mesh. The choice was made during consultation between the patient and surgeon, after reviewing the perceived advantages and disadvantages of each approach. A tumor band (ligament advanced reinforcement system) was used as synthetic mesh and wrapped around the prosthesis of the proximal humerus for soft tissue reconstruction in the reconstruction-with-mesh group. Study endpoints included the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) function scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, shoulder ROM, and proximal migration of the humeral prosthesis.

RESULTS

The mean MSTS score for patients without synthetic mesh reconstruction was 20 ± 3 points (66%), whereas for patients with synthetic mesh reconstruction, the mean score was 24 ± 2 points (79%; p = 0.001). Patients with synthetic mesh reconstruction had a higher mean total ASES score (85 ± 1.1 points versus 72 ± 1.7 points; p = 0.025), and better function for activities of daily living. They also had better ROM on mean active forward flexion (p = 0.020), abduction (p < 0.001), and external rotation (p < 0.001) than patients without synthetic mesh reconstruction. Proximal migration of the prosthesis was observed in five of 15 of patients in the group without synthetic mesh reconstruction and in none of those treated with synthetic mesh (p = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with intraarticular resection and endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal humerus with reconstruction that included synthetic mesh had better shoulder function and ROM, and more stable joints than patients who had reconstruction without synthetic mesh. This result supports prior observations by others and it remains to be shown whether use of the ligament advanced reconstruction system is superior to other types of mesh or other types of reconstructions. Further investigation is needed but our results indicate that using mesh should be considered for patients with tumor resection and endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal humerus.

Does total humeral endoprosthetic replacement provide reliable reconstruction with preservation of a useful extremity?

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding the ideal method of reconstruction after proximal humeral resection and several reconstructive techniques have been reported. The reconstructive options are very limited when resection of the entire humerus is required. One option is endoprosthetic reconstruction, but there have been few published studies on the outcome of total humeral endoprosthetic reconstruction.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purposes of this study were (1) to assess the longevity of total humerus prostheses in those patients who survived their disease; (2) to review the complications associated with this prosthesis; and (3) to assess the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional score in survivors.

METHODS

Thirty-four patients (10 males, 24 females) with a mean age of 26 years (range, 7-86 years) were included in this study. Histological diagnosis was osteosarcoma in 15 patients, chondrosarcoma in seven, Ewing's sarcoma in seven, metastatic carcinoma in three, liposarcoma in one, and giant cell tumor of bone in one remaining patient. Twenty-nine patients had their total humeral endoprosthetic replacement for primary reconstruction, whereas the remaining five patients received their implants for failures with other reconstructive techniques. At a minimum followup of 3 months (mean, 8.2 years; range, 3 months to 29 years), 16 patients were alive with no evidence of disease, whereas 13 of the remaining 18 died with metastatic disease. Local recurrence was seen in five patients and all eventually died of disease progression.

RESULTS

According to the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, the cumulative 10-year implant survival rate was 90%. Periprosthetic infection was seen in four patients, postoperative radial nerve palsy in one, and proximal migration of the prosthesis in three, whereas three patients needed a change of the articular elbow bushings at a mean of 16 years after the implant insertion. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional score of the 28 patients who survived their disease for more than 12 months after the index procedure and could therefore be functionally assessed was 83% (range, 60%-93%).

CONCLUSIONS

From this small, preliminary report, we suggest that total humeral endoprosthetic replacement may be a reasonable option of reconstruction after tumor resection. We have shown that this prosthesis preserves the function of the hand. The local recurrence rate observed suggests that careful selection of patients is crucial. Infection was our most common surgical complication, but we showed that in those who survived their tumor, this prosthesis offers a method to preserve a functional upper extremity in some patients. Further study with more patients is necessary to confirm the value of this reconstruction method.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Results of the proximal humerus endoprosthetic reconstruction after tumour resection

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the results of surgical reconstructions of the proximal humerus after transarticular tumour resection, compare the functional results with the results of shoulder arthroplasty in patients with extensive damage of the proximal humerus of non-neoplastic origin. Material and methods. Between 2001 and 2013 38 proximal humeral reconstructions were performed in our clinic: using monopolar endoprostheses - 26 (68%) and modular systems with reversible head -12 (32%). The control group included 46 patients with extensive lesions of the proximal humerus of non-neoplastic origin, operated in our clinic in the period from 2006 to 2012. Term follow-up of patients ranged from 7 months to 9 years. Assessment of functional results was carried out in a period from six months to one year. Results. The seven-year survival according the Kaplan - Meier method for patients with primary malignant tumors of the proximal humerus (25 patients) was 77%. In the study group the average value of functional outcome MSTS score was 77.7%. Unipolar prosthesis showed a bad result, both in the control (61,3% MSTS, 60,7 Neer) and in the main (67,7% MSTS, 61,1 Neer) study groups. Conclusion. Currently the method of choice which doesn’t impair the oncologic component of treatment patients with shoulder neoplastic lesions is its replacement with modular reversible systems in combination with additional soft tissue fixation.

Improvement of the shoulder function after large segment resection of the proximal humerus with the use of an inverse tumour prosthesis

PURPOSE

Active shoulder function after segmental tumour resection of the proximal humerus and endoprosthetic reconstruction is regularly compromised, while the overall arm function allows a satisfying use in daily activities. The main functional problem remains the loss of huge parts of the shoulder girdle musculature and its bony attachment. In revision arthroplasty inverse shoulder implants can improve the active range of motion significantly in comparison to anatomical shaped prostheses. The aim of this study was to investigate if these promising experiences are transferable to reconstructions after tumour resection of the proximal humerus by using a modular inverse tumour prosthesis.

METHODS

In this study we observed the functional and oncological results of 18 inverse proximal humerus endoprosthetic replacements (IPHP) with the MUTARS system (Implantcast®) after resection of benign (1x giant cell) and malignant (11x primary bone sarcoma, 5x bone metastasis of carcinoma) bone tumours. Mean age at operation was 42 years. The mean postoperative follow-up was 33 months (range ten to 120).

RESULTS

Resection margins were wide in 13 and marginal in five patients. Mean reconstruction length was 15.1 cm (range 6-25 cm). Mean operation time was 191 minutes. The axillary nerve was mostly preserved in 78 % (n = 14). At latest follow-up the patients presented a medium MSTS-score of 24.6/30. The mean active arm abduction in the shoulder joint was 78° and 88° active arm elevation for patients with intact axillary nerve function, but significantly reduced for the four patients with compromised deltoid function. One patient needed a surgical revision due to a deep implant infection.

CONCLUSIONS

The IPHP offers a significant improvement of active shoulder function in patients in whom the axillary nerve can be preserved in comparison to anatomically-shaped implants. However, for patients without any deltoid function there is no benefit regarding an improved active range of motion using an IPHP.

Scapulo-humeral arthrodesis using a pedicled scapular pillar graft following resection of the proximal humerus

BACKGROUND

Scapulo-humeral arthrodesis (SHA) is a proven reconstruction method in patients with proximal humerus malignancies requiring resection of the shoulder abduction apparatus (rotator cuff and deltoid muscles) or its nerve supply. Standard practice consists in using a pedicled fibular flap. We use instead a pedicled autologous bone graft harvested from the ipsilateral scapular pillar.

HYPOTHESIS

The objective of this study was to assess functional outcomes and radiological healing after SHA using a pedicled scapular pillar graft.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of the 12 patients managed at a single center by a single surgeon between 1994 and 2011. SHA was performed using a vascularised ipsilateral scapular pillar graft after proximal humerus resection to treat a bone malignancy. The graft was harvested from the ipsilateral scapular pillar, pedicled on the circumflex scapular artery, fitted into the remaining proximal humerus, and secured to the glenoid using screws. A humerus-scapular spine plate was added to stabilize the arthrodesis. Radiographic results were assessed on standard radiographs obtained at last follow-up. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the MusculoSkeletalTumour Society (MSTS) score and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS).

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 4.9 years, 87.5% of SHA junctions were healed, mean MSTS score was 71%, and mean TESS score was 70%.

DISCUSSION

The outcomes in our patients were similar to those reported after SHA using a pedicled fibular flap. However, our technique does not require microsurgery. It is simple, reproducible, and effective. Its indications of choice are intra- or extra-articular resection of the proximal humerus including the attachments of the rotator cuff and deltoid muscle tendons or the nerves supplying these muscles.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV (retrospective study).

Reverse shoulder replacement after resection of the proximal humerus for bone tumours

We investigated the functional outcome in patients who underwent reverse shoulder replacement (RSR) after removal of a tumour of the proximal humerus. A total of 16 patients (ten women and six men) underwent this procedure between 1998 and 2011 in our hospital. Five patients died and one was lost to follow-up. Ten patients were available for review at a mean follow-up of 46 months (12 to 136). Eight patients had a primary and two patients a secondary bone tumour. At final follow up the mean range of active movement was: abduction 78° (30° to 150°); flexion 98° (45° to 180°); external rotation 32° (10° to 60°); internal rotation 51° (10° to 80°). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 77% (60% to 90%) and the mean Toronto Extremity Salvage Score was 70% (30% to 91%). Two patients had a superficial infection and one had a deep infection and underwent a two-stage revision procedure. In two patients there was loosening of the RSR; one dislocated twice. All patients had some degree of atrophy or pseudo-atrophy of the deltoid muscle. Use of a RSR in patients with a tumour of the proximal humerus gives acceptable results.

Evaluation of a reconstruction reverse shoulder for tumour surgery and tribological comparision with an anatomical shoulder arthroplasty

PURPOSE

The functional results after reconstruction of the proximal humerus in tumour surgery are poor. Therefore, a reversed proximal humerus replacement was developed in our institution (MUTARS humerus inverse). A low degree of wear on the polyethylene is required because of the patients' youth and demands on shoulder function. A special type of polyethylene with shock-absorbing properties has been developed to minimise polyethylene wear in the MUTARS inverse proximal humerus replacement. We compared the tribological properties of an anatomical shoulder prosthesis (CAPICA) with the new reversed proximal humerus replacement (MUTARS humerus inverse).

METHODS

Both prostheses were tested up to 5 × 10(6) cycles. Every millionth cycle the surface was inspected and a gravimetric measurement was performed. A measurement of surface roughness was done before testing and after 5 × 10(6) cycles.

RESULTS

In both prostheses after 5 × 10(6) cycles there were no major defects, such as delamination, observed. In the reversed proximal humerus replacement abrasion of 28 mg/10(6) cycles was detected. The mean abrasion of the anatomical prosthesis was 9.28 mg/ 10(6) cycles.

CONCLUSION

The glenoid component of the first reversed humerus replacement (MUTARS humerus inverse) has wear properties comparable to those of normal reversed shoulder prostheses. This is important, as this type of prosthesis is used in young patients after resection of bone tumours, with a good functional outcome. It can, therefore, be expected that the revision rate due to wear will be as high as in patients with normal reversed shoulder prostheses.

The results of total humeral replacement following excision for primary bone tumour

Rarely, the extent of a malignant bone tumour may necessitate resection of the complete humerus to achieve adequate oncological clearance. We present our experience with reconstruction in such cases using a total humeral endoprosthesis (THER) in 20 patients (12 male and eight female) with a mean age of 22 years (6 to 59). We assessed the complications, the oncological and functional outcomes and implant survival. Surgery was performed between June 2001 and October 2009. The diagnosis included osteosarcoma in nine, Ewing's sarcoma in eight and chondrosarcoma in three. One patient was lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up was 41 months (10 to 120) for all patients and 56 months (25 to 120) in survivors. There were five local recurrences (26.3%) and 11 patients were alive at time of last follow-up, with overall survival for all patients being 52% (95% confidence interval (CI) 23.8 to 74) at five years. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score for the survivors was 22 (73%; 16 to 23). The implant survival was 95% (95% CI 69.5 to 99.3) at five years. The use of a THER in the treatment of malignant tumours of bone is oncologically safe; it gives consistent and predictable results with low rates of complication.

[Endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus in malignoma]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the operation is local tumor control in malignant primary and secondary bone tumors of the proximal humerus. Limb salvage and preservation of function with the ability to lift the hand to the mouth. Stable suspension of the arm in the shoulder joint or the artificial joint.

INDICATIONS

Primary malignant bone tumors of the proximal humerus or the scapula with joint infiltration but without involvement of the vessel/nerve bundle. Metastases of solid tumors with osteolytic defects in palliative or curative intention or after failure of primary osteosynthesis.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Tumor infiltration of the vessel/nerve bundle. Massive tumor infiltration of the soft tissues without the possibility of sufficient soft tissue coverage of the implant.

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Transdeltoid approach with splitting of the deltoid muscle. Preparation and removal of the tumor-bearing humerus with exposure of the vessel/nerve bundle. Ensure an oncologically sufficient soft tissue and bone margin in all directions of the resection. Cementless or cemented stem implantation. Reconstruction of the joint capsule and fixation of the prosthesis using a synthetic tube. Soft tissue coverage of the prosthesis with anatomical positioning of the muscle to regain function. POSTOPERATIVE TREATMENT: Immobilization of the arm/shoulder joint for 4-6 weeks in a Gilchrist bandage. Passive mobilization of the elbow joint after 3-4 weeks. Active mobilization of the shoulder and elbow joint at the earliest after 4-6 weeks.

An inexpensive reconstruction method after resection in tumors of the proximal humerus with extensive involvement of the diaphysis

Limb salvage is now the norm for a large majority of malignant bone tumors. The proximal humerus is the third most common site for the occurrence of malignant tumors of bone. In tumors of the proximal humerus with large volume disease, extensive involvement of the diaphysis is not infrequent. Resection may often extend as far as the distal metaphysis in order to obtain adequate oncologic margins. A very small distal stump of bone poses unique challenges in reconstruction where conventional reconstruction modalities may be difficult to apply. We describe the use of a customised plate to reconstruct these defects which offers an inexpensive, easy to use, durable reconstruction option. It provides adequate shoulder and arm stability and ensures excellent hand and elbow motion with good functional results.