Is a Cephalomedullary Nail Durable Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Peritrochanteric Disease?

Curettage of lesion combined with reconstruction of intramedullary nail and bone cement for the treatment of subtrochanteric metastatic tumors of the femur

This study investigated subtrochanteric femoral metastases using a retrospective approach by analyzing data from 109 patients with bone metastases (2015-2019). Surgical methods were compared: curettage with intramedullary nail and bone cement versus prosthetic reconstruction. Post-surgical assessments included joint function, bone metastasis-related serum markers, and complications. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to screen independent risk factors affecting patients' prognosis. R language was used to construct a nomogram model for predicting patients' 1- and 2-year survival, which was validated through ROC curves and the calibration chart. Patients treated with curettage showed superior postoperative outcomes, exhibiting significantly higher Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scores (80.00 vs. 70.00, P < 0.001) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scores (MSTS) (23.86 ± 2.57 vs. 21.67 ± 3.24, P < 0.001). Both methods demonstrated comparable efficacy in pain control (VAS: 3.00 vs. 3.00, P > 0.05) and bone metabolism impact (ALP: 85.93 ± 14.44 vs. 83.19 ± 21.19; CTX-I: 3.03 ± 1.56 vs. 3.15 ± 1.75; PINP: 10.30 ± 4.41 vs. 11.57 ± 3.90; all P > 0.05). Cox regression identified treatment regimen, age, diabetes, and pre-treatment KPS score as significant survival factors (all P < 0.05). The nomogram model demonstrated high accuracy in predicting one-year and two-year survival (AUC: 0.821 and 0.790, respectively). In conclusion, curettage with intramedullary nail and bone cement enhances postoperative functional recovery and quality of life for subtrochanteric femoral metastases patients, representing a promising treatment method.

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.

Life Expectancy After Treatment of Metastatic Bone Disease: An International Trend Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The decision to treat metastatic bone disease (MBD) surgically depends in part on patient life expectancy. We are unaware of an international analysis of how life expectancy among these patients has changed over time. Therefore, we asked (1) how has the life expectancy for patients treated for MBD changed over time, and (2) which, if any, of the common primary cancer types are associated with longer survival after treatment of MBD?

METHODS

We reviewed data collected from 2000 to 2022 in an international MBD database, as well as data used for survival model validation. We included 3,353 adults who underwent surgery and/or radiation. No patients were excluded. Patients were grouped by treatment date into period 1 (2000 to 2009), period 2 (2010 to 2019), and period 3 (2020 to 2022). Cumulative survival was portrayed using Kaplan-Meier curves; log-rank tests were used to determine significance at P < 0.05. Subgroup analyses by primary cancer diagnosis were performed.

RESULTS

Median survival in period 2 was longer than in period 1 ( P < 0.001). Median survival (at which point 50% of patients survived) had not been reached for period 3. Median survival was longer in period 2 for all cancer types ( P < 0.001) except thyroid. Only lung cancer reached median survival in period 3, which was longer compared with periods 1 and 2 ( P < 0.001). Slow-growth, moderate-growth, and rapid-growth tumors all demonstrated longer median survival from period 1 to period 2; only rapid-growth tumors reached median survival for period 3, which was longer compared with periods 1 and 2 ( P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Median duration of survival after treatment of MBD has increased, which was a consistent finding in nearly all cancer types. Longer survival is likely attributable to improvements in both medical and surgical treatments. As life expectancy for patients with MBD increases, surgical methods should be selected with this in mind.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

VI.

Reoperation after surgery for bone metastasis of renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The prognosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has markedly improved with the advent of molecular targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, the therapeutic response in patients with bone metastasis remains low; therefore, surgery still plays a significant role in treatment of bone metastasis. It is important to maintain quality of life for patients with bone metastasis from RCC and avoid reoperation after surgery for bone metastasis. Therefore, we investigated the risk factors for reoperation after surgery in patients with bone metastasis from RCC.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 103 bones of 97 patients who underwent surgery for bone metastasis of RCC from 2001 to 2023 at our institutions.

RESULTS

Reoperation was performed in 10 (9.7%) of 103 bones. There was no correlation between reoperation-free survival and any of the following variables: preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy, site of bone metastasis, indication for surgery (solitary bone metastasis or impending or pathologic fractures), surgical method (intramedullary nailing fixation, curettage, or en bloc resection), preoperative embolization, or survival.

CONCLUSION

The risk of reoperation for bone metastasis of RCC does not appear to be based on the surgical method.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study .

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.

Implant survival and functional results of endoprosthetic reconstruction for proximal femoral metastases with pathological fractures

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the patient and implant survival, clinical and functional outcomes, and the rate of complications resulting in reconstruction failure following endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) of extensive proximal femoral metastases associated with actual or impending pathological fractures.

METHODS

A total of 111 patients with actual or impending pathological fractures due to metastatic disease of the proximal femur were treated with EPR between 2003 and 2018. Staged surgery, bilateral EPR, was performed in 3 cases. The patients comprised 51 females and 60 males with a mean age of 52.1 ± 12.3 years. The patient and implant survival were recorded. Clinical and functional outcomes were assessed by using the visual analogue scale (VAS), Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) functional scoring, and Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS). The different types of abductor mechanism repair were evaluated by functional tests and existence of Trendelenburg gait at postoperative follow-ups. The complications resulting in reconstruction failure were investigated.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 23.1 ± 17.9 months. The overall survival of patients after EPR was 89% at 6 months, 72% at 1 year and 10% at 5 years. The estimated 1- and 5-year overall implant survival was 100% and 97.3% (95% CI, 0.95-0.98), respectively, as the endpoint was defined as complete removal of the prosthesis. Median VAS score before endoprosthetic replacement was 8 and after 3 months 4. Before surgery, the median MSTS score was 40 (30-56.6%) and the median KPS score was 40 (30-50). Postoperative third month, the median MSTS score was 56.6 (53.3-86.6%) and the median KPS score was 60 (40-70). Functional scores were superior in trochanter major split osteotomized group compared to trochanter major removed group. Trendelenburg gait was seen in 20 (17.5%) patients postoperatively. There were 10 (8.7%) complications resulting in reconstruction failure.

CONCLUSION

Endoprosthetic replacement can provide a durable fixation with high implant survival rate and good clinical and functional results in extensive proximal femoral metastases associated with a pathological fracture.

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.

Intramedullary rod failure in metastatic breast cancer: Do triple negative cancer patients have more revision surgery?

•

Intramedullary rodding can be considered for bone lesions in breast cancer.

•

No difference in revision rate among patients with different receptor-status.

•

Mean intramedullary rod revision time was 19 months.

•

Revision cumulative incidence: 6% at 12 months and 20% at 60 months.

Background

Breast cancer is the most common cancer and second cause of death in women worldwide. Patients with breast cancer are classified into subgroups based on the presence or absence of hormone receptors and the human epidermal growth factor 2-neu (HER-2) marker, the different molecular profiles come with an associated prognosis and variety of possible treatment options. Patients with triple negative cancer have a worse prognosis, a more aggressive behavior, higher likelihood of spreading, a higher risk of recurrence and a poorer outcome overall. Intramedullary rod fixation has proven to provide a good outcome and function in patients with metastatic breast cancer, but no study has addressed the receptor-status potential outcome differences that may affect disease progression at an orthopaedic surgery site.

Questions/Purposes

(1) Do patients with triple negative breast cancer have a higher revision rate of intramedullary rod fixation of bone metastases? (2) Do patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer have a higher revision rate of intramedullary rod fixation due to local disease progression?

Methods

This was a single-center, observational, retrospective cohort study. Fifty-seven patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer metastatic to long bones who underwent surgical fixation with an intramedullary rod for a pathological fracture or an impending fracture due to a bone metastasis with a Mirels’ score equal or above 8 between January 2004 and December 2016 at our institution were included. All implants used were from the same manufacturer (Stryker Corp., Mahwah, NJ, USA). Patients were divided into two groups based on the receptor status of the tumor and were classified either as triple negative, when the tumor lacked progesterone, estrogen and HER-2 receptors, or as receptor-positive when the presence of one or a combination of either three was proven. In the triple-negative tumor group the mean follow up time was 26 months (SD 29) and median follow up time was 16 months. In the receptor-positive tumor group mean follow up was 27 months (SD 24) with a median follow up of 19 months. To assess possible associations between different factors and the outcomes of interest, we used either the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables and the ANOVA test for continuous variables. For the survival assessment, a Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed and for the cumulative incidence a competing risk analysis was utilized.

Results

The intramedullary rod revision rate for patients in the triple-negative tumor group was 17%, while for the receptor-positive group it was 12%, this was not statistically different for our sample size. The mean time for revision of the intramedullary rod in the whole sample was 19 months (SD 11, range 6–40). The causes of revision were disease progression (43%), nonunion (29%) and surgeon error (29%). The cumulative incidence of revision surgery was 6% (CI 95%, 2–14%) at 12 months and 20% (CI 95%, 8–36%) at 60 months.

Conclusions

Intramedullary rodding can be considered for the treatment of long bones metastases in breast cancer patients for an impending or actual pathological fracture. There is no difference in the intramedullary rod revision rate among patients with different receptor-status when comparing triple-negative tumor patients and receptor-positive ones.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.

Utility of the Current Procedural Terminology Codes for Prophylactic Stabilization for Defining Metastatic Femur Disease

INTRODUCTION

Cohorts from the electronic health record are often defined by the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. The error prevalence of CPT codes for patients receiving surgical treatment of metastatic disease of the femur has not been investigated, and the predictive value of coding ontologies to identify patients with metastatic disease of the femur has not been adequately discussed.

METHODS

All surgical cases at a single academic tertiary institution from 2010 through 2015 involving prophylactic stabilization of the femur or fixation of a pathologic fracture of the femur were identified using the CPT and International Classification of Disease (ICD) codes. A detailed chart review was conducted to determine the procedure performed as documented in the surgical note and the patient diagnosis as documented in the pathology report, surgical note, and/or office visit notes.

RESULTS

We identified 7 CPT code errors of 171 prophylactic operations (4.1%) and one error of 71 pathologic fracture fixation s(1.4%). Of the 164 prophylactic operations that were coded correctly, 87 (53.0%) had metastatic disease. Of the 70 pathologic operations that were coded correctly, 41 (58%) had metastatic disease.

DISCUSSION

The error prevalence was low in both prophylactic stabilization and pathologic fixation groups (4.1% and 1%, respectively). The structured data (CPT and ICD-9 codes) had a positive predictive value for patients having metastatic disease of 53% for patients in the prophylactic stabilization group and 58% for patients in the pathologic fixation group. The CPT codes and ICD codes assessed in this analysis do provide a useful tool for defining a population in which a moderate proportion of individuals have metastatic disease in the femur at an academic medical center. However, verification is necessary.

Current concepts in the surgical treatment of skeletal metastases

Symptomatic metastatic bone disease affects a large proportion of patients with malignant tumours and significantly impairs patients’ quality of life. There are still controversies regarding both surgical indications and methods, mainly because of the relatively few high-quality studies in this field. Generally, prosthetic reconstruction has been shown to result in fewer implant failures and should be preferred in patients with a good prognosis. Survival estimation tools should be used as part of preoperative planning. Adjuvant treatment, which relies on radiotherapy and inhibition of osteoclast function may also offer symptomatic relief and prevent implant failure. In this review we discuss the epidemiology, indications for surgery, preoperative planning, surgical techniques and adjuvant treatment of metastatic bone disease.

Evaluating the reoperation rate and hardware durability of three stabilizing implants for 105 malignant pathologic humerus fractures

INTRODUCTION

Many patients sustaining a malignant pathologic humerus fracture (MPHF) elect for surgical stabilization. Complications prompting reoperation can occur, leading to additional quality of life and financial cost. One common event preceding reoperation is a broken implant (BI). The purpose of this study was to identify the rate of reoperation following surgical stabilization of MPHF with three techniques - photodynamic bone stabilization (PBS), intramedullary nail (IMN), and cemented plate fixation (CPF) - and estimate to what extent improved implant durability might prevent reoperation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective data collection was performed, identifying 105 procedures (100 patients) who underwent non-articular MPHF surgery from 2010-2016: 19 PBS, 65 IMN, 21 CPF. All patients were followed for at least two years or until death.

RESULTS

Reoperation rates were similar at one year (10.5%,6.2%,4.8%, p = 737), two years (15.8%,6.2%,9.5%, p = 375), and final evaluation (15.8%,7.7%,14.3%, p = 248). The rate of BI for PBS, IMN, and CPF was 10.5%,0%, and 4.8% (p = 049 PBS/IMN) at one year, 15.8%,0%, and 9.5% (p = 010 PBS/IMN) at two years, and 15.8%,0%, and 14.3% (p = 010 IMN/PBS, p = 013 IMN/CPF) at final evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperation rate was not significantly different at any time point. However, IMN surgery resulted in the lowest rate of broken implants (zero), statistically significant versus PBS at all time periods and versus CPF at final follow-up. PBS may eventually offer selected advantages for MPHF management, but current data suggests fragility must be thoughtfully considered.