Surgical management of proximal femoral metastasis: Fixation or hip replacement? A 309 case series

Risk of complications and implant survival of surgical treatment of proximal femoral metastasis: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The patients with femoral metastasis in the inter- or subtrochanteric area could be treated with intramedullary nailing or prosthetic reconstruction, however, it is controversial which surgical treatment could offer less complications and implant failure. Our purpose was to define the risk of complications and implant survival in patients treated with intramedullary nailing or prosthetic reconstruction.

METHODS

We analyzed studies reporting the risk of complications, reoperations and removal of the implant in patients treated with intramedullary nailing, hemiarthroplasty, arthroplasty or megaprosthesis.

RESULTS

We analyzed 27 studies (1346 patients) reporting patients treated with intramedullary nail (51%), hemiarthroplasty (15%), arthroplasty (2%), megaprosthesis with (25%) or without (7%) acetabular component. No difference was found in the overall risk of complications between patients treated with intramedullary nailing 6%, hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty 7% and megaprosthesis 11% (p = 0.23). However, patients treated with megaprosthesis had increased risk of reoperation due to infection (70%), compared to the patients treated with intramedullary nail (13%), and patients treated with hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty (23%) (p = 0.02). Revision due to disease progression was required in 61% of the patients treated with intramedullary nail, but not in patients treated with hemiarthroplasty, total arthroplasty, and megaprosthesis (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with megaprosthesis had higher risk of reoperation due to infection, while patients treated with intramedullary nailing had higher risk of revision due to disease progression. Regarding patients treated with megaprosthesis, the risk of reoperation due to dislocation was higher in those treated with acetabular component.

Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Bone Disease

Background/Objective

The hip is a common location for metastatic bone disease (MBD) and surgical intervention is often indicated to relieve pain and improve function. MBD of the hip is usually treated with hemiarthroplasty or with total hip arthroplasty if there are acetabular lesions. As treatment for metastatic disease evolves and patients may expect to live longer after diagnosis, further evaluation of the complications and functional outcomes associated with hip arthroplasty for MBD are necessary.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent hip arthroplasty for MBD at a single institution between 2007 and 2021. Outcomes included rates of reoperation, complications, and overall survival.

Results

Ninety-three cases in 91 patients were included. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) was performed in 52 cases (55.9%), hemiarthroplasty in 15 (16.1%), and complex arthroplasty, including proximal femur replacement or THA with complex acetabular reconstruction, was performed in 26 (28%). There were 11 reoperations in five patients and six dislocations. Median survival was 10.4 months and one-year overall survival was 53.3%. There was a significant increase in the proportion of patients who were able to ambulate independently (35.2% vs 17.6%; p=0.02) and a significant decrease in patients confined to a wheelchair (18.7% vs 3.3%; p=0.045) after surgery.

Conclusions

Hip arthroplasty for MBD leads to relatively low rates of complications and reoperations in this population known to have high postoperative morbidity and mortality. Hip arthroplasty provides the majority of MBD patients with a durable reconstruction that exceeds their lifespan and enables them to return to an acceptable level of function.

Subtrochanteric nonunion after intramedullary nailing due to pathological fracture: proximal femoral replacement as a salvage approach

PURPOSE

To assess proximal femoral replacement as a treatment solution for nonunion of pathologic subtrochanteric fractures after cephalomedullary nailing in patients with pathological fracture and previously irradiated bone.

METHODS

Retrospective review of five patients with pathological subtrochanteric femoral fractures that were treated with cephalomedullary nailing and developed a nonunion, which was revised with conversion to a proximal endoprosthetic replacement.

RESULTS

All five patients had previously been treated with radiation. One patient had the latest follow-up at 2 months postoperatively. At that time, the patient was walking with a walker for assistance, with no evidence of hardware failure or loosening on imaging. The remaining four patients had the latest follow-up ranging from 9 to 20 months after surgery. At their latest follow-up, three of the four patients were ambulatory with no pain, using only a cane for assistance with longer distances. The other patient demonstrated pain in his affected thigh, utilizing a walker for assistance with ambulation at latest follow-up, but not requiring further surgical interventions. There were no hardware failures or implant loosening through the follow-up period. None of the patients required revision, and there were no postoperative complications observed at their last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with pathological fractures in the subtrochanteric region that is treated with cephalomedullary nailing and developed a nonunion, treatment with conversion to a proximal femoral replacement with a mega prosthesis is a valuable treatment with good functional results and low risk for complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level IV.

Intramedullary nailing versus plate compound osteosynthesis in subtrochanteric and diaphyseal pathologic femoral fractures: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Pathologic fractures of the extremities due to carcinoma metastases require individual and patient prognosis-related stabilization procedures. Quick remobilization of the patient to restore the quality of life is of high importance, especially in the case of subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femoral fractures. In our retrospective cohort study, we evaluated intraoperative blood loss, length of operation, complication rate, and regain of lower extremity function in plate compound osteosynthesis (PCO) versus intramedullary nailing (IM) for subtrochanteric and diaphyseal pathologic fractures of the femur.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and July 2021, we retrospectively reviewed 49 patients who were treated at our institution for pathologic fractures of the subtrochanteric and diaphyseal femurs for group differences in terms of blood loss, length of operation, implant survival, and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score.

RESULTS

We included 49 stabilization procedures of the lower extremity due to pathologic fractures of the proximal or diaphyseal femur, with a mean follow-up of 17.7 months. IM (n = 29) had a significantly shorter operation time than PCO (n = 20) (112.4 ± 9.4 and 163.3 ± 15.96 min, respectively). We did not detect any significant differences in terms of blood loss, complication rate, implant survival, or MSTS score.

CONCLUSION

Based on our data, pathologic subtrochanteric and diaphyseal fractures of the femur can be stabilized with IM, which has a shorter operation time than PCO, but the complication rate, implant survival, and blood loss remain unaffected.

Orthopaedic surgeons' ability to detect pathologic hip fractures: review of 1484 fractures reported to the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register

BACKGROUND

The proximal femur is the most common location of metastases in the appendicular skeleton. Data on pathologic hip fractures, however, are sparse despite it is the most frequently operated pathologic fracture. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of orthopaedic surgeons to identify pathologic hip fractures in an acute setting and secondly to validate the underlying cause of the pathologic fractures reported to Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR).

METHODS

In the NHFR dataset between 2005 and 2019, we identified 1484 fractures reported to be pathologic possibly secondary to a malignancy. These fractures were thoroughly validated by reviewing X-rays, the patient journal, the operation description for date, side, why there had been suspicion of pathologic fracture, and implant choice. Pathology reports were reviewed once a biopsy had been performed. Based on this validation, information in the NHFR was corrected, whenever necessary.

RESULTS

Of the 1484 fractures possible secondary to malignancy, 485 (32.7%) were not a pathologic fracture. When reviewing the 999 validated pathologic fractures, 15 patients had a pathologic fracture secondary to a benign lesion. The remaining 984 patients had a pathologic fracture secondary to malignancy. The underlying diagnosis reported was corrected in 442 of the 999 patients. The true rate of pathologic hip fractures secondary to malignancy in our material was 0.8%, and most patients had underlying prostate (30%), breast (20%), or lung (17%) cancer.

CONCLUSION

Orthopaedic surgeons in Norway failed to report correct data on pathologic fractures and the corresponding cancer diagnosis in an acute setting in many patients. The corrected data on pathologic fractures in the NHFR from 2005 to 2019 can now be a valid resource for further studies on the subject.

Proximal femoral tumor resection followed by joint prosthesis replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the prognostic outcome of hip joint replacement after resection of proximal femoral tumors by reviewing original studies.

METHODS

Two researchers independently searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception to July 17, 2022. Then, the literature was screened by inclusion criteria. The basic information, primary outcomes, and secondary outcomes were extracted for weighted combined analysis. The quality of the included literature was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-four retrospective cohort studies comprising 2081 patients were included. The limb salvage rate was 98%. The survival rates at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years were 80, 72, 65, 64, and 55% for patients with primary tumors and the rate at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years were 44, 25, 17, 14, and 11% for patients with bone metastases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

As chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment progressed, joint reconstruction after proximal femoral tumor resection improved patients' function and quality of life.

Safety and Efficacy of a Single-Stage versus Two-Stage Intramedullary Nailing for Synchronous Impending or Pathologic Fractures of Bilateral Femur for Oncologic Indications: A Systematic Review

Although intramedullary nail (IMN) fixation is the standard of care for most impending and/or complete pathologic fractures of the femur, the optimal timing/sequence of the IMN in cases of synchronous bilateral femoral disease in advanced cancer is not well established. Thus, we compared the outcomes of single-stage (SS) vs. two-stage (TS) IMN of the bilateral femur with a systematic review of the literature on this topic. Bilateral SS and TS IMN cases were identified from 14 studies extracted from four databases according to PRISMA guidelines. Safety (complications, reoperations, mortality, survival, blood loss, and transfusion) and efficacy (length of stay [LOS], time to start rehabilitation and adjuvant therapy, functional scores, and cost) were compared between the groups. A total of 156 IMNs in 78 patients (36 SS and 42 TS) were analyzed. There were one surgical (infection in TS requiring reoperation; p = 0.860) and fifteen medical complications (five in SS, ten in TS; p = 0.045), with SS being associated with lower rates of total and medical complications. Survival, intraoperative mortality, and postoperative same-admission mortality were similar. No cases of implant failure were reported. Data on LOS, rehabilitation, and adjuvant therapy were scarcely reported, although one study favored SS over TS. No study compared cost or functional scores. Our study is the largest and most comprehensive of its kind in supporting the safety and efficacy of a SS bilateral femur IMN approach in these select patients. Further investigations with higher levels of evidence are warranted to optimize treatment protocols for this clinical scenario.

Intramedullary nailing vs modular megaprosthesis in extracapsular metastases of proximal femur: clinical outcomes and complication in a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Extracapsular proximal femur metastasis could be treated by synthesis or resection and megaprosthesis. No universal accepted guidelines are present in the literature. The aim of our study is to analyze of patients with metastases in the trochanteric region of the femur treated by a single type of intramedullary nailing or hip megaprosthesis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients affected by extracapsular metastases of proximal femur. Anthropometric and anamnestic data, routine blood exams and complications were collected. VAS score and MSTS score was administered before the surgery, ad 1-6-12 months after surgery. An un-paired T test and Chi-square were used. Multiple linear regression and logistic regression was performed. Significance was set for p < 0.05.

RESULT

Twenty patients were assigned in intramedullary Group, twenty-five in megaprostheses Group. The mean operative time is shorter in intramedullary group. Differential shows a higher anemization in megaprostheses group (2 ± 2 vs 3.6 ± 1.3; p = 0.02). The patients of intramedullary group showed malnutrition (Albumin: 30.5 ± 6.5 vs 37.6 ± 6 g/L; p = 0.03) and pro-inflammatory state (NLR: 7.1 ± 6.7 vs 3.8 ± 2.4; p = 0.05) (PLR: 312 ± 203 vs 194 ± 99; p = 0.04) greater than megaprostheses group. The patients in intramedullary groups shows a higher functional performance score than megaprostheses group at 1 month follow-up (MSTS: 16.4 ± 6.3 vs 12.2 ± 3.7; p = 0.004). A multivariate analysis confirms the role of type of surgery (p = 0.001), surgery duration (p = 0.005) and NLR (p = 0.02) in affecting the MSTS. Globally eight complications were recorded, no statistical difference was noticed between the two groups (p = 0.7), no predictor was found at logistic analysis.

CONCLUSION

Intramedullary nailing guarantees a rapid functional recovery, compared to patients undergoing hip megaprosthesis who instead improve gradually over time. The selection of patients with poor prognosis allows the correct surgical indication of nailing, while in the case of a more favorable prognosis, the intervention of hip megaprosthesis is to be preferred.

The Surgical Management of Proximal Femoral Metastases: A Narrative Review

The proximal femur is a common location for the development of bony metastatic disease. Metastatic bone disease in this location can cause debilitating pain, pathologic fractures, reduced quality of life, anemia or hypercalcemia. A thorough history, physical examination and preoperative investigations are required to ensure accurate diagnosis and prognosis. The goals of surgical management is to provide pain relief and return to function with a construct that provides stability to allow for immediate weightbearing. Current surgical treatment options include intramedullary nailing, hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty and endoprosthetic reconstructions. Oligometastatic renal cell carcinoma must be given special consideration as tumor resection and reconstruction has survival benefit. Both tumor and patient characteristics must be taken into account before deciding on the appropriate surgical intervention.

Prosthesis or osteosynthesis for the treatment of a pathological hip fracture? A nationwide registry-based cohort study

Aims

How endoprosthetic replacement compares to osteosynthesis in the treatment of pathologic hip fractures as far as functional outcome and use of healthcare resources is concerned remains largely unknown. We aimed to investigate this in a nationwide registry.

Methods

We analyzed the functional outcome after surgery for a pathological fracture of the hip in terms of post-operative pain and ambulatory capacity. The preferred surgical method depending on the level of the treating unit was also examined. Furthermore, we documented the length of hospital stay and the patterns of discharge and compared them between these two methods.

Results

Patients operated with an endoprosthesis reported significantly lower pain at follow-up. Both methods (endoprosthetic replacement and osteosynthesis) were equally effective in restoring the ambulatory capacity and demanded a similar length of stay in hospital. Orthopaedic surgeons working in hospitals with dedicated sarcoma teams were more likely to use a prosthesis rather than osteosynthesis, when compared to surgeons working at other university hospitals or emergency hospitals.

Conclusion

Endoprosthetic replacement results in a better functional outcome in terms of post-operative pain without consuming more healthcare resources. Orthopaedic surgeons working in hospitals with sarcoma centers are more likely to use prostheses as compared to surgeons working at hospitals where dedicated musculoskeletal oncology teams are not available.