Extensor reconstruction of the knee using the fibular transposition technique after proximal tibial resection

Use of hamstring autograft to reconstruct the patellar tendon after endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia for bone sarcomas

The surgical treatment of bone sarcoma involves wide surgical resection and endoprosthetic replacement. Surgical resection for proximal tibia bone sarcoma includes the patellar tendon. The secondary extension lag is a common complication and, although many have been described, the options for reconstruction of the patellar tendon are suboptimal. We propose adding a biological reinforcement, the hamstring tendons, to our extensor mechanism reconstruction technique (polyprolene mesh and gastrocnemius flap). We describe the surgical technique and, using an illustrative case, compare the outcome of this technique with the outcome following reconstruction without reinforcement. Level of evidence: Level III.

Reconstruction of knee extensor with patellar tendon autograft following intraoperative radiotherapy

BACKGROUND

Patellar tendon autograft after intraoperative extracorporeal radiotherapy has been used for reconstruction of the extensor mechanism following limb-sparing wide tumor resection around the knee. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical outcome of this reconstruction technique.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed six consecutive patients with peripatellar tendon and proximal tibial sarcoma who underwent reconstruction of the knee extensor mechanism. The resection area was planned to be contained with the patellar tendon in order to obtain a wide margin. First, the patella was osteotomized at the midline, and the inferior half of patella, patellar tendon, and tibial tuberosity were excised en bloc. The resected segments were devitalized with intraoperative extracorporeal radiotherapy and reimplanted into the original site. A follow-up evaluation included an assessment of the range of motion, extensor lag, the International Society of Limb Salvage score, and complications.

RESULTS

Six patients were followed up for 121-270 months. One patient underwent an additional reconstruction with total knee arthroplasty due to a collapse of the tibial subchondral bone. A supracondylar fracture of the femur occurred in two patients, and a delayed union of the osteosynthesis site of the tibial shaft was observed in one patient. At the latest follow up, extensor lag had a median of five degrees, and International Society of Limb Salvage scores had a median of 83%. No local recurrence or rupture of the patellar tendon was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction of the knee extensor mechanism using a patellar tendon treated with intraoperative radiotherapy is a reliable and successful method.

Proximal Tibial Reconstruction After Tumor Resection: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

The proximal part of the tibia is a common location for primary bone tumors, and many options for reconstruction exist following resection. This anatomic location has a notoriously high complication rate, and each available reconstruction method is associated with unique risks and benefits. The most commonly utilized implants are metallic endoprostheses, osteoarticular allografts, and allograft-prosthesis composites. There is a current lack of data comparing the outcomes of these reconstructive techniques in the literature.

METHODS

A systematic review of peer-reviewed observational studies evaluating outcomes after proximal tibial reconstruction was conducted, including both aggregate and pooled data sets and utilizing a Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) review for quality assessment. Henderson complications, amputation rates, implant survival, and functional outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 1,643 patients were identified from 29 studies, including 1,402 patients who underwent reconstruction with metallic endoprostheses, 183 patients who underwent reconstruction with osteoarticular allografts, and 58 patients who underwent with reconstruction with allograft-prosthesis composites. The mean follow-up times were 83.5 months (range, 37.3 to 176 months) for the metallic endoprosthesis group, 109.4 months (range, 49 to 234 months) for the osteoarticular allograft group, and 88.8 months (range, 49 to 128 months) for the allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction group. The mean patient age per study ranged from 13.5 to 50 years. Patients with metallic endoprostheses had the lowest rates of Henderson Type-1 complications (5.1%; p < 0.001), Type-3 complications (10.3%; p < 0.001), and Type-5 complications (5.8%; p < 0.001), whereas, on aggregate data analysis, patients with an osteoarticular allograft had the lowest rates of Type-2 complications (2.1%; p < 0.001) and patients with an allograft-prosthesis composite had the lowest rates of Type-4 complications (10.2%; p < 0.001). The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores were highest in patients with an osteoarticular allograft (26.8 points; p < 0.001). Pooled data analysis showed that patients with a metallic endoprosthesis had the lowest rates of sustaining any Henderson complication (23.1%; p = 0.009) and the highest implant survival rates (92.3%), and patients with an osteoarticular allograft had the lowest implant survival rates at 10 years (60.5%; p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Osteoarticular allograft appears to lead to higher rates of Henderson complications and amputation rates when compared with metallic endoprostheses. However, functional outcomes may be higher in patients with osteoarticular allograft. Further work is needed using higher-powered randomized controlled trials to definitively determine the superiority of one reconstructive option over another. In the absence of such high-powered evidence, we encourage individual surgeons to choose reconstructive options based on personal experience and expertise.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Reliability and Validity of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scoring System for the Upper Extremity in Japanese Patients

BACKGROUND

The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system developed in 1993 is a widely used disease-specific evaluation tool for assessment of physical function in patients with musculoskeletal tumors; however, only a few studies have confirmed its reliability and validity.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The aim of this study was to validate the MSTS scoring system for the upper extremity (MSTS-UE) in Japanese patients with musculoskeletal tumors for use by others in research. Does the MSTS-UE have: (1) sufficient reliability and internal consistency; (2) adequate construct validity; and (3) reasonable criterion validity in comparison to the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) or SF-36?

METHODS

Reliability was performed using test-retest analysis, and internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Construct validity was evaluated using a scree plot to confirm the construct number and the Akaike information criterion network. Criterion validity was evaluated by comparing the MSTS-UE with the TESS and SF-36.

RESULTS

The test-retest reliability with intraclass correlation coefficient (0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.97) was excellent, and internal consistency with Cronbach's α (0.7; 95% CI, 0.53-0.81) was acceptable. There were no ceiling and floor effects. The Akaike Information Criterion network showed that lifting ability, pain, and dexterity played central roles among the components. The MSTS-UE showed substantial correlation with the TESS scoring scale (r = 0.75; p < 0.001) and fair correlation with the SF-36 physical component summary (r = 0.37; p = 0.007). Although the MSTS-UE showed slight correlation with the SF-36 mental component summary, the emotional acceptance component of the MSTS-UE showed fair correlation (r = 0.29; p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

We can conclude that the MSTS is not an adequate measure of general health-related quality of life; however, this system was designed mainly to be a simple measure of function in a single extremity. To evaluate the mental state of patients with musculoskeletal tumors in the upper extremity, further study is needed.