Outcomes and complications following non-oncologic total femoral replacement

The push-through total femoral prosthesis for revision of a total hip or knee replacement with extreme bone loss

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to assess outcomes of using the push-through total femoral prothesis (PTTF) for revision total hip replacement with extreme bone loss.

METHODS

10 consecutive patients who received PTTF between 2012 and 2018 for revision hip arthroplasty were included in the study. Primary functional outcomes were assessed using Harris Hip Score (HHS), Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores. Range of motion, complications, and ambulatory status were also recorded to assess secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

2 of 10 patients underwent surgery with PTTF for both knee and hip arthroplasty revision. The mean time between index surgery and PTTF was 15 years (3-32 yrs). Acetabular components were revised in 6 of 10 patients during PTTF application. After a mean follow-up of 5.9 years, hip dislocations occurred in 3 patients. All of the dislocated hips were ones with retained conventional non-constrained acetabular bearings. Patient satisfaction was high (MSTS: 67%, HHS: 61.2%, TESS 64.6%) despite high re-operation rate (40%) and minor postoperative problems.

CONCLUSIONS

PTTF should be considered for hip and knee arthroplasty revision procedures in patients with an extreme bone defect. Consistent usage of constrained liners should be considered to avoid hip dislocation, which was our main problem following the procedure.

Survival Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes Support the Use of Custom Cement-Over Megaprosthesis (CCOM) in Complex Revision Lower Limb Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting with periprosthetic osteolysis or fracture between ipsilateral hip and knee arthroplasties are challenging to treat successfully. Long-stem implants, osteopenic bones, and patient comorbidities all represent considerable surgical challenges. Poor results of fracture fixation in this group, coupled with the desire to retain well-performing implants and minimize soft-tissue trauma led to the developmentof the custom cement-over megaprostheses (CCOM). The aims of the study were to evaluate implant survivals, complications, and patient outcomes in those undergoing CCOM within our institution.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing CCOM between 2002 and 2022 was performed. We studied 34 cases, 33 patients, one patient underwent staged bilateral surgery with 26 women and 8 men.

INDICATIONS

trauma (16), failure of implants /aseptic loosening (9), or joint pathology. The mean Charlson comorbidity index was 3.5 (range, 0 to 8). All patients were followed up (mean 75 months [range, 9 to 170]) at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter. The VAS, EuroQol-5D-3L and MSTS scores were collected at 1 year.

RESULTS

Implant survival defined by the primary outcome (all-cause revision of the implant at any time point) at 12 months of 97% (32 of 33). In surviving patients, implant survival was 90% (18 of 20) and all 7 survived at 5 and 10 years, respectively. Implant survival including those in the primary outcome group and those free of infection at 12 months was 84.8% (28 of 33) and in surviving patients, implant survival was 70% (14 of 20) and 7 out of 7 at 5 and 10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The CCOM technique demonstrates good implant survivorships and satisfactory patient-reported outcomes in complex, often frail patients who have compromised bone stock. This series confirms the technique as an established alternative to total femoral replacement in these cases.

Comparative Outcomes and Failure Rates of Total Femur Replacement in Oncologic and Nononcologic Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total femur replacement (TFR) has become increasingly significant as a salvage procedure for both oncologic reconstruction and complex nononcologic conditions such as revision arthroplasty. Despite its effectiveness in limb salvage, TFR is associated with high complication and failure rates, which vary depending on the underlying indication.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases was conducted, focusing on studies that reported outcomes of TFR in oncologic and nononcologic cases. Primary outcomes included failure mode and rates according to the Henderson classification, functional outcomes scores, and mobility status. Data were analyzed using random-effects models and generalized linear mixed models.

RESULTS

A total of 35 studies involving 1,002 patients were included. The majority of TFRs were performed for oncologic reasons (63.7%). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 66%, with a limb salvage rate of 89%. The meta-analysis revealed a combined failure rate of 34%. For type 4 failures (infection), nononcologic patients exhibited a significantly higher rate at 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12%-26%, I2 = 46%, p < 0.01) compared with 8% in oncologic patients (95% CI, 6%-12%, I2 = 0%). Regarding combined types 1 to 4 failures, oncologic patients had a rate of 20% (95% CI, 25%-52%, I2 = 60%), whereas nononcologic patients faced a higher rate of 37% (95% CI, 12%-26%, I2 = 63%) (p < 0.05), indicating a significant difference. There were no significant differences in the MSTS score. In addition, there were no notable differences when comparing failure modes 1, 2, and 3 independently. Mobility analysis showed that approximately 70% of patients required walking aids after surgery.

CONCLUSION

TFR offers a valuable limb salvage option in both oncologic and nononcologic scenarios, despite its high failure rates. Although functional outcomes were similar between groups, the higher failure rate in nononcologic cases and the poor overall quality of evidence warrant further comprehensive assessments into predictors of outcomes to optimize results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Postoperative Outcomes of Total Femur Replacement in Oncologic and Nononcologic Patients: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Total femur replacement (TFR) is used for primary reconstruction after extensive tumor resection or as a revision surgery due to prosthetic failure. Studies on TFR rates of failure and functional outcomes are scarce. The purpose of our study was to compare the modes of failure, amputation rates, and functional outcomes after TFR between oncologic and nononcologic patients.

METHODS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were for this manuscript. Our study was registered on PROSPERO (413582). Quality assessment of all studies was performed using Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. Endoprosthesis failure was assessed using the Henderson classification and functional outcomes using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score. Weighted means and standard deviations were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall failure rate was similar between groups. Henderson type 4 failures were more common within the nononcologic group, while the others were more frequently found in the oncologic group. Overall amputation rate was higher in the oncologic group mainly due to type 5 failure. Amputations occurred mainly after type 4 and type 5 failures. Functional outcome was better within the oncologic group (70.5 versus 61.7, respectively; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Total femoral replacement in the oncologic and nononcologic group is associated with a high rate of failure (31% and 32.5%, respectively). Overall amputation rate was higher in the oncologic group mainly due to type 5 failure. Functional outcome was better within the oncologic group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Clinical outcomes of total femoral replacement. First Latin American experience

INTRODUCTION

The femur is frequently affected by primary and metastatic bone tumors. In cases with substantial bone loss, Total Femur Replacement (TFR) remains the only viable limb preservation option. This study investigates the clinical outcomes of TFR patients in a Latin American setting, with a minimum 3-year follow-up.

METHODS

Retrospective review identifying cases of TFR at a single center from 2009 to 2020. Patients who had TFR either due to oncological indications or complications arising from oncology-related surgeries were included. Data on the indications for surgery and post-operative complications were recorded. To assess functional status, the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score and the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) were used.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients met the inclusion criteria. Diagnoses included eight osteosarcomas, four chondrosarcomas, one Ewing sarcoma, and one giant cell tumor. Ten patients had undergone prior surgeries. Indication for TFR was a complication of a previous surgery in 78.6 % of cases. Post-TFR complications were experienced by 35.7 % of patients, requiring further surgeries. At the 3-year mark, average MSTS and TESS scores were 67.4 % and 70.8 %, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Total femur replacement serves as a valuable limb salvage solution for patients with significant femoral defects in oncological scenarios, however, there is a significant risk of complications. Given its potential benefits, it is essential for developing countries to consider incorporating TFR into their healthcare systems.

Revision Distal Femoral Replacement Using Custom-made Stem and Cone to Augment Proximal Fixation

Achieving bone fixation during megaprosthesis revision presents a formidable challenge in view of the substantial bone loss. We report treatment of a failed revision distal femoral replacement in an active 36-year-old male mechanic remotely treated for osteosarcoma. A custom stem and cone were manufactured to augment fixation and preserve bone stock within a short segment of the remaining proximal femur. The patient returned to regular function without the need for assistive devices. Follow-up imaging demonstrated stable implant fixation at 1-year follow-up. While cones and sleeves have vastly improved fixation in revision knee arthroplasty, a custom-made cone for the proximal femur was used to augment fixation of a revision megaprosthesis and obviate the use of a total femoral replacement.

Megaprostheses in Nononcologic Hip and Knee Revision Arthroplasty

Megaprostheses as a means of limb salvage originated in orthopaedic oncology, and implant evolution was initially driven by developments within this field. Improvements in imaging modalities and in chemotherapeutics prolonged patient survival and promoted a transformation in the surgeon's mentality from salvage operation to functional limb reconstruction. As primary arthroplasty operations became more popular, megaprostheses found new utility in hip and knee revision arthroplasty. In this capacity, these implants provided much needed alternatives to traditional arthroplasty revision options for addressing massive bone loss and complex periprosthetic fractures. The indications for megaprostheses continue to expand with advances in design, stability, and overall longevity. Thus, greater numbers of orthopaedic surgeons in arthroplasty and traumatology have to be familiar with this technology. Importantly, each anatomic location presents unique considerations for reconstruction; however, additional variables such as the quantity of bone loss, the quality of remaining bone stock, and fracture type also influence implant selection. Ultimately, there is still much to be optimized in the use of megaprostheses for hip and knee revision arthroplasty. High multifactorial complication and revision surgery rates compared with conventional prostheses make these implants for many a "last resort" option.

Interlocking reconstruction-mode stem-sideplates preserve at-risk hips with short residual proximal femora

AIMS

We have evaluated the survivorship, outcomes, and failures of an interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate implant used to preserve the native hip joint and achieve proximal fixation when there is little residual femur during large endoprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur.

METHODS

A total of 14 patients underwent primary or revision reconstruction of a large femoral defect with a short remaining proximal femur using an interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate for fixation after oncological distal femoral and diaphyseal resections. The implant was attached to a standard endoprosthetic reconstruction system. The implant was attached to a standard endoprosthetic reconstruction system. None of the femoral revisions were amenable to standard cemented or uncemented stem fixation. Patient and disease characteristics, surgical history, final ambulatory status, and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score were recorded. The percentage of proximal femur remaining was calculated from follow-up radiographs.

RESULTS

All 14 at-risk native hip joints were preserved at a mean final follow-up of 6.0 years (SD 3.7), despite a short residual femur, often after proximal osteotomies through the lesser trochanter. Overall, 13 of 14 stems had long-term successful fixation. Eight patients required no reoperation. Three patients required reoperation due to implant-related issues, and three patients required reoperation for wound healing problems or infection. There were no dislocations or fractures. At final follow-up the mean MSTS score was 24.9 (SD 4.1). Nine patients required no ambulation aids, and only one had a Trendelenburg gait.

CONCLUSION

This interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate reliably preserves native hip joint anatomy and function after large femoral resection with a short remaining proximal femur, both in the primary and revision setting. This is particularly important for preventing or delaying total femoral arthroplasty in young patients after oncological reconstruction. Hip abductor strength and function could be maintained by this method, and the risk of dislocation eliminated. The success of this technique in this modest series should be verified in a larger collaborative study and will be of interest to revision surgeons and oncologists. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):398-404.