Short-stem reconstruction for megaendoprostheses in case of an ultrashort proximal femur

Extended distal femur resection: Megaprosthesis with telescopic bone allograft augmentation versus total femur prosthesis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Oncological distal femur resections can leave a proximal femur too short to host a stem. Reconstructive techniques are then challenging. The purpose of the study is to compare implant survival, complication rate and MSTS of two different options.

METHODS

We retrospectively divided 33 patients with primary bone tumours of distal femur in Group 1 (16 patients reconstructed with knee megaprosthesis with proximal bone augmentation, APC) and Group 2 (17 patients reconstructed with total femur prosthesis, TFP). Less than 12 cm of remaining proximal femur were planned for all resections.

RESULTS

MSTS score at 2 years is 25 ± 5 for Group 1 and 19 ± 7 for Group 2 (confidence interval [C.I.] 95%, p = 0.02). At 5 years it is 27 ± 2 for Group 1 and 22 ± 6 for Group 2 (C.I. 95%, p = 0.047). Failure and complication rates are lower for Group 1, but no statistical significance was reached. In APC reconstruction, union at the host-allograft junction was achieved in 16 out of 16 patients using the telescopic bone augmentation technique.

CONCLUSIONS

APC provides higher functional results compared to TFP after extended distal femur resection. In APC reconstruction, telescopic augmentation is excellent for achieving union at the host-allograft junction.

3D-printed modular prostheses for reconstruction of intercalary bone defects after joint-sparing limb salvage surgery for femoral diaphyseal tumours

Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of 3D-printed modular prostheses in patients who underwent joint-sparing limb salvage surgery (JSLSS) for malignant femoral diaphyseal bone tumours.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 17 patients (13 males and four females) with femoral diaphyseal tumours who underwent JSLSS in our hospital.

Results

In all, 17 patients with locally aggressive bone tumours (Enneking stage IIB) located in the femoral shaft underwent JSLSS and reconstruction with 3D-printed modular prostheses between January 2020 and June 2022. The median surgical time was 153 minutes (interquartile range (IQR) 117 to 248), and the median estimated blood loss was 200ml (IQR 125 to 400). Osteosarcoma was the most common pathological type (n = 12; 70.6%). The mean osteotomy length was 197.53 mm (SD 12.34), and the median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 19 to 38). Two patients experienced local recurrence and three developed distant metastases. Postoperative complications included wound infection in one patient and screw loosening in another, both of which were treated successfully with revision surgery. The median Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score at the final follow-up was 28 (IQR 27 to 28).

Conclusion

The 3D-printed modular prosthesis is a reliable and feasible reconstruction option for patients with malignant femoral diaphyseal tumours. It helps to improve the limb salvage rate, restore limb function, and achieve better short-term effectiveness.

Megaprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur with a short residual proximal femur following bone tumor resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To investigate the risk of postoperative function and complications associated with reconstruction methods in patients with short residual proximal femurs (< 12 cm) after resection of distal femoral bone tumors, we performed a systematic review of studies reporting postoperative function and complications in these patients.

METHODS

Of the 236 studies identified by systematic searches using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, eight were included (none were randomized controlled trials). In these studies, 106 (68.4%), 12 (7.7%), and 37 (23.9%) patients underwent reconstruction with custom-made megaprostheses with extracortical plates or cross-pins, allograft prosthetic composite (APC), and Compress^® compliant pre-stress (CPS) implants, respectively.

RESULTS

Aseptic loosening occurred slightly more frequently in the APC group than in the other reconstruction methods (APC group, 21%; custom-made megaprosthesis group, 0-17%; CPS implant group, 14%). No differences were noted in the frequencies of implant breakage, fractures, or infections between the three reconstruction methods. Mechanical survival, where endpoint was set as implant removal for any reason, was 80% at seven years in the APC group, 70-77% at 10 years in the custom-made megaprosthesis group, and 68% at nine years in the CPS implant group. Therefore, there appeared to be no difference among the three reconstruction methods with respect to mechanical survival.

CONCLUSIONS

During megaprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur with a short residual proximal femur after bone tumor resection, similar results were obtained using custom-made megaprostheses, APCs, and CPS implants.

Novel axial compressive endoprosthesis ACE can enhance metaphyseal fixation and facilitate osseointegration: A biomechanical study

Background: Metaphyseal fixation for endoprosthetic reconstruction after bone tumor resection is difficult due to the short residual bone length and reverse funnel shape of the metaphysis. In the current study, 3D-printed axial compressive endoprosthesis (ACE) with a short stem and intramedullary axial compressive mechanism is proposed to improve metaphyseal fixation. The rationales of ACE are that 1) intramedullary axial compress enhances the stability of endoprosthesis and facilitates bone ingrowth at the osteotomy site; 2) 3D printed porous metallic surface at osteotomy surface and stem allows bone ingrowth to achieve osseointegration.

Methods: A biomechanical study was performed to explore the initial stability using Sawbones. A diaphysis and metaphyseal segmental defect were created and four fixation structures were simulated: 1) ACE; 2) ACE + lateral plate; 3) stem prosthesis + unilateral plate; 4) stem prosthesis + bilateral plates. Bending and torsional stiffness were determined with a material testing machine. The relationship between the torque of the compression nut and the axial compression force of the bone-implant surface was measured using a round gasket load sensor.

Results: ACE + lateral plate was the stiffest in the bending test (sagittal 324.3 ± 110.8 N/mm, coronal 307.7 ± 8.7 N/mm). ACE + lateral plate and stem prosthesis + bilateral plates had the highest torsional stiffness (10.9 ± 1.3 Nm/° and 10.7 ± 0.2 Nm/° respectively). The bending stiffness of ACE was equivalent to stem prosthesis + bilateral plates (sagittal 196 ± 10 N/mm vs. 200 ± 7 N/mm, coronal 197 ± 14 N/mm vs. 209 ± 3 N/mm), but the torsional stiffness of ACE was inferior to stem prosthesis + bilateral plates (6.1 ± 1.3 Nm/° vs. 10.7 ± 0.2 Nm/°). Stem prosthesis + unilateral plate was the least stiff both in bending and torsion. The relationship between torque (T/Nm) and axial pressure (F/N) was F = 233.5T.

Conclusion: The axial compressive design of ACE enhances primary stability and facilitates osseointegration, which provides an alternative option of metaphyseal fixation for endoprosthetic reconstruction.

Hip-preserving reconstruction using a customized cemented femoral endoprosthesis with a curved stem in patients with short proximal femur segments: Mid-term follow-up outcomes

Background

Short metaphyseal segments that remain following extensive distal femoral tumor resection can be challenging to manage, as the residual short segments may not be sufficient to accept an intramedullary cemented stem of standard length. The present study was developed to detail preliminary findings and experiences associated with an intra-neck curved stem (INCS) reconstructive approach, with a particular focus on mechanical stability.

Method

From March 2013 to August 2016, 11 total patients underwent reconstructive procedures using a customized cemented femoral endoprosthesis (CCFE) with an INCS. Measurements of femoral neck-shaft angle values were made before and after this procedure. Radiological outcomes associated with this treatment strategy over an average 63-month follow-up period were additionally assessed. Functionality was assessed based upon Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores, while a visual analog scale (VAS) was used to rate pre- and postoperative pain, and any complications were noted.

Results

Relative to the preoperative design, no significant differences in femoral neck–shaft angle were observed after this reconstructive procedure (p = 0.410). Postoperatively, the tip of the stem was primarily positioned within the middle third of the femoral head in both lateral and posterior-anterior radiographic, supporting the accuracy of INCS positioning. The average MSTS score for these patients was 25 (range: 21–28), and VAS scores were significantly reduced after surgery (p &lt; 0.0001). One patient exhibited local disease recurrence and ultimately succumbed to lung metastases, while two patients exhibited aseptic loosening. None of the treated patients exhibited complications such as infections, periprosthetic fractures, or prosthetic fractures as of most recent follow-up.

Conclusion

CCFE with an INCS represents a viable approach to massive femoral diaphyseal defect with short proximal femur repair, as patients can achieve good functional outcomes and early weight-bearing with proper individualized rehabilitative interventions, all while exhibiting low rates of procedure-related complications.

A comparison of cemented and cementless intra-neck curved stem use during hip-preserving reconstruction following massive femoral malignant tumor removal

Background

Patients who undergo massive femoral malignant tumor (MFMT) resection often exhibit shortened femoral metaphyseal juxta-articular segments. The use of a customized femoral endoprosthesis (CFE) with an intra-neck curved stem (INCS) has emerged as a viable reconstructive surgical strategy for these individuals. Relative to a cemented INCS, it remains unclear as to whether cementless INCS use is associated with improvements in functionality or reconstructive longevity. As such, the present study was conducted to compare functional outcomes, endoprosthetic survival, and endoprosthesis-related complication rates in patients undergoing cemented and cementless INCS implantation.

Methods

A total of 24 patients undergoing lower limb salvage and reconstructive surgical procedures utilizing cemented or cementless INCS endoprostheses were retrospectively included. Patient-functional outcomes, endoprosthetic survival, and complication rates were compared as a function of age; diagnosis; the length of femoral resection; residual proximal femur length; Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores; visual analog scale (VAS) scores; and the rates of implant breakage, periprosthetic infections, periprosthetic fractures, and aseptic loosening.

Results

The mean follow-up was 56 months. Significant differences in the length of femoral resection (p&lt;0.001) and residual proximal femur length were observed (p&lt;0.001) between the cemented and cementless INCS groups. There were no differences in overall patient survival and aseptic loosening-associated endoprosthesis survival in the cemented and cementless groups. None of the included patients experienced periprosthetic fractures, infections, or implant breakage. Average respective MSTS and VAS scores did not differ between groups.

Conclusion

For patients undergoing treatment for MFMTs, the use of a CFE with an INCS has emerged as a viable approach to hip-preserving reconstructive surgery. With appropriately designed individualized rehabilitative programs, good functional outcomes can be achieved for these endoprostheses, which are associated with low complication rates. Moreover, the selection between cemented or cementless INCS in the clinic should be made based on patient-specific factors, with cementless INCS implementation being preferable in younger patients with good-quality bone, the potential for long-term survival, and the osteotomy site near the lesser trochanter, whereas cemented INCS use should be favored for individuals who are older, have a shorter life expectancy, or have poor bone quality.

Nickel-titanium shape memory alloy embracing fixator benefits the determination of the implantation angle of prosthesis stem in tumor-type artificial joint replacement

BACKGROUND

Hip tumors often require tumor-type artificial joint replacement. The selection of the prosthesis stem (hip tumor prosthesis stem) implantation angle during the operation is important to prevent the complication of postoperative prosthesis dislocation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of a nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) shape memory alloy embracing fixator in determination of the implantation angle of a hip tumor prosthesis stem and analyze its efficacy.

METHODS

36 patients with proximal femur tumor were treated with extended tumor resection and prosthetic replacement. 14 patients received prosthetic replacements with the embracing fixators fixing between the junction of the prosthesis stem and the femur temporarily, while the other 22 patients received the same replacements but without the fixators. The two groups were compared regarding occurrence of complications, limb function, and active hip range of motion (ROM).

RESULTS

There was no case of hip dislocation in the group that received prosthetic replacements with the use of embracing fixators. Occurrence of deep infection had no difference between the two groups. However, better limb function and higher active (ROM) on abduction or flexion were observed in the group using embracing fixators.

CONCLUSION

Ni-Ti shape memory alloy embracing fixator plays a key role in assisting the accurate implantation angle of the prosthesis stem in prosthetic replacement. The prosthesis stem can be adjusted to the optimal angle with the help of the embracing fixator. Patients have a lower risk of dislocation, better limb function, and higher active hip ROM.

Hip-Preserved Reconstruction Using a Customized Cementless Intercalary Endoprosthesis With an Intra-Neck Curved Stem in Patients With an Ultrashort Proximal Femur: Midterm Follow-Up Outcomes

Background: Hemiarthroplasty is widely used for proximal femoral reconstruction after tumor resection. However, complications of hemiarthroplasty include infection, hip dislocation, and acetabular wear. This study aimed to: (1) evaluate the reliability and validity of a customized cementless intercalary endoprosthesis (CCIE) with an intra-neck curved stem (INCS) to reconstruct femoral diaphyseal defects with an ultrashort proximal femur (UPF); (2) assess the lower extremity function after reconstruction with this endoprosthesis; and (3) identify the postoperative complications associated with the use of this endoprosthesis.

Methods: Between October 2015 and May 2019, 13 patients underwent reconstruction with a CCIE with an INCS. The distance from the center of the femoral head to the midline of the body and the apex of the acetabulum was measured preoperatively. Additionally, the distance from the tip of the INCS to the midline of the body and the apex of the acetabulum was measured postoperatively. The femoral neck–shaft angle was also measured pre- and postoperatively. After an average follow-up duration of 46 months, the radiological outcomes of the CCIE with an INCS were analyzed. Function was evaluated with the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score. Pain was measured using a paper visual analog scale (VAS) pre- and postoperatively, and complications were recorded.

Results: Compared with our preoperative design, we found no significant difference in the postoperative distance from the tip of the INCS to the body midline (p = 0.187) and the apex of the acetabulum (p = 0.159), or in the postoperative femoral neck–shaft angle (p = 0.793). Thus, the INCS positions were deemed accurate. The average MSTS score was 26 (range: 24–28), and the VAS score was significantly decreased postoperatively compared with preoperatively (p < 0.0001). No patients developed aseptic loosening, infection, periprosthetic fracture, or prosthetic fracture as of the last follow-up.

Conclusion: The CCIE with an INCS was a valid and reliable method for reconstructing femoral diaphyseal defects with a UPF following malignant tumor resection. Postoperative lower extremity function was acceptable, with an appropriate individualized rehabilitation program, and the incidence of complications was low.

Reconstruction survival of segmental megaendoprostheses: a retrospective analysis of 28 patients treated for intercalary bone defects after musculoskeletal tumor resections

INTRODUCTION

Intercalary endoprosthetic reconstructions have been reserved for patients with a limited life expectancy due to reports of high rates of early mechanical and reconstruction failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, we retrospectively analyzed 28 patients who underwent intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction of the femur (n = 17) or tibia (n = 11) regarding reconstruction survival and causes of complications and reconstruction failure.

RESULTS

A total of 56 stems were implanted in this collective, 67.9% of which were implanted using cementation. Eight different stem designs were implanted. The mean patient age at the time of operation was 42.3 years. The mean bone defect needing reconstruction measured 18.5 cm. Resection margins were clear in 96.4% of patients. Of twenty-six complications, five were not implant-associated. We observed infection in 10.7% (n = 3) and traumatic periprosthetic fracture in 3.6% (n = 1) of cases. The most frequent complication was aseptic stem loosening (ASL) (53.8%; n = 14) occurring in eight patients (28.6%). The metaphyseal and meta-diaphyseal regions of femur and tibia were most susceptible to ASL with a rate of 39.1% and 31.3% respectively. No ASLs occurred in epiphyseal or diaphyseal location. Overall reconstruction survival was 43.9% and 64.3% including patients who died of disease with their implant intact. Overall limb survival was 72.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Proper planning of segmental reconstructions including stem design with regard to unique anatomical and biomechanical properties is mandatory to address the high rates of ASL in metaphyseal and metadiaphyseal stem sites. With continued efforts of improving stem design in these implantation sites and decreasing rates of mechanical failure, indications for segmental megaendoprostheses may also extend to younger patients with the localized disease for their advantages of early weight bearing and a lack of donor-site morbidity.

Metaphyseal Stem Tip Location is a Risk Factor for Aseptic Loosening of Cemented Distal Femoral Replacements

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to describe the incidence of aseptic loosening (AL) of cemented stem distal femoral replacements (DFR) and to identify modifiable risk factors for its development.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 245 consecutive primary, cemented stem DFRs implanted at a single institution over a 40-year period. The primary outcome was revision surgery for AL. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors for AL. Radiographs were reviewed to identify stem tip location, which was defined as diaphyseal or metaphyseal. Implant survival to AL was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

AL and structural failure were the most common causes of implant failure (incidence 11.8%, 29/245). Younger age (P = .002), male sex (P = .01), longer resection length (P = .04), and nonmodular implants (P = .002) were all significantly associated with AL. After 1:1 matching, stem tip location in metaphyseal bone was independently associated with AL (P = .04). 36% (9/25) of implants that loosened had a stem tip located in the metaphysis vs only 8% (2/25) of implants that did not fail. 30-year survival to AL was lower for implants with a metaphyseal stem tip than implants with a diaphyseal stem tip (22.7% vs 47.6%; P = .11).

CONCLUSION

A stem tip location in metaphyseal bone is associated with diminished survival to AL. When templating before DFR, stem tip location can assist in identifying high-risk reconstructions that may benefit from alternative or supplemental fixation techniques to prevent the development of AL.

What Is the Survival of the Telescope Allograft Technique to Augment a Short Proximal Femur Segment in Children After Resection and Distal Femur Endoprosthesis Reconstruction for a Bone Sarcoma?

BACKGROUND

Large, malignant bone tumors and revision limb salvage procedures often result in the resection of extensive lengths of the involved bone segment, leaving a residual segment of bone that may be too short to support a standard intramedullary stem for endoprosthetic reconstruction. Telescope allografting, in which an allograft is used to augment the remaining bone segment by telescoping it into the residual bone segment, was described for situations in which residual bone stock is insufficient after tumor resection or prosthetic revision. Apart from one study that first described the procedure [15], there are no other studies reporting the outcome of this telescopic concept for restoring bone stock.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

For patients younger than 18 years who underwent the telescopic allograft technique to augment a short segment of the proximal femur after resection of bone sarcomas who also underwent endoprosthesis reconstruction of the distal femur, we asked: (1) What is the survivorship free from removal of the telescopic allograft and the endoprosthetic stem at 7 years after surgery? (2) What proportion of these reconstructions will heal to the host bone without delayed union or nonunion? (3) What is the functional outcome based on the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score?

METHODS

We retrospectively studied our institutional database and identified 127 patients younger than 18 years who underwent surgery for a primary malignant bone tumor of the distal femur between December 2008 and October 2018. After excluding 16 patients undergoing amputation and rotationplasty and 57 patients undergoing recycled autograft/allograft reconstruction, 54 patients who underwent primary or revision distal femur endoprosthesis reconstruction were identified. Among these patients, we considered 15 patients who underwent telescopic allograft augmentation of the femur for analysis. One patient was lost to follow-up before 2 years but was not known to have died, leaving 14 for analysis at a median (range) 49 months (24 to 136 months) of follow-up. The indications for telescopic allograft augmentation of the femur in our institution were a proximal femur length of less than 120 mm after resection or resection of more than two-thirds of the total length of the femur. Ten of 14 patients underwent telescopic allograft augmentation as a revision procedure (distal femur resorption in five patients, endoprosthesis stem loosening in three patients, implant fracture in one patient, and infection in one patient), and the remaining four patients underwent telescopic allograft augmentation as a primary limb salvage procedure for large malignant bone tumors of the distal femur. The histologic diagnosis in all patients was osteosarcoma. At the time of telescopic allograft augmentation and reconstruction, the median age of the patients was 14 years (7 to 18 years). The size and the type of bone allograft to be used (femoral shaft or proximal femur) was planned before surgery, with consideration of the extent of resection, level of osteotomy, diameter of the host bone at the osteotomy site, and approximate diameter of the endoprosthesis stem to be used. The segment of the cylindrical allograft used for telescoping was thoroughly washed, prepared, and impacted onto the native femur to achieve telescoping and overlap. Serial digital radiographs were performed once a month for the first 6 months after the procedure, every 2 months until 1 year, and then every 6 months thereafter. Two surgeons in the department (at least one of which was involved in the surgery) retrieved and reviewed clinical notes and radiographs to determine the status of the telescopic allograft and endoprosthesis stem. We defined delayed union as radiological union at the osteotomy site more than 6 months after the procedure without additional surgery; we defined nonunion as no radiological evidence of callus formation at the osteotomy site 9 months after the procedure, necessitating additional surgery. The reviewers did not disagree about the definition of healing time. None of the patients missed radiographic follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survivorship free from removal of telescopic allograft and the endoprosthesis stem at 7 years after surgery was estimated. Patient function was assessed using the 1993 version of the MSTS [9], as determined by chart review of the institutional database performed by one of the surgeons from the department.

RESULTS

The survivorship free from removal of the telescopic allograft and endoprosthesis stem at 7 years after surgery was 80% (95% confidence interval 22% to 96%). The allograft united with the host bone in 100% (14 of 14) of the patients. Though 21% (3 of 14) had delayed union, no nonunions were seen. The median (range) MSTS score at the final follow-up interval was 27 (22 to 30).

CONCLUSION

Although this is a small group of patients, we believe that allograft segments help augment short bone stock of the proximal femur after long-segment resections, and the telescopic technique seems to be associated with a low proportion of nonunion or delayed union, which is one of the most common complications of allografts. Maintaining an adequate length of the proximal femur is important in preserving the hip, and this technique may be especially useful for young individuals who may undergo repeated revision procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Distal femoral replacement - Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature

Distal femoral endoprosthetic replacement has been successfully used to reconstruct distal femoral defects after tumor resection for over four decades. Despite continued advances, aseptic loosening continues to be the most common failure mode after infection. Debate still exists about a variety of design features and the optimal fixation method remains controversial. To date, no large-scale study or meta-analysis has demonstrated the superiority of one fixation technique over another. While the classic dichotomy of cemented versus cementless stems is well-known, the contemporary surgeon needs to fully understand the optimal clinical setting for each type of fixation technique and additional strategies to maximize implant stability. In clinical practice, the choice of fixation must be tailored to the individual patient. The surgeon must consider whether the operation is being performed for primary sarcoma or metastatic carcinoma, the presence of distant metastases, age, comorbidities, and whether radiotherapy has been previously given or will be required at the site of fixation. The best strategy for each patient optimizes tumor control and appropriately weighs risks of fixation failure versus the expected patient survival. This review will explore cemented and uncemented distal femoral replacement and highlight modern concepts to optimize each technique.

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.

[Current results of tumour endoprosthetics in adolescents and adults]

BACKGROUND

The majority of osteoarticular defects after tumor resection in adolescent and adult patients are reconstructed using megaendoprosthetic implants. However, even infant and pre-teen children undergo reconstruction of defects using so-called growing prostheses with an increasing frequency.

OBJECTIVES

Presentation of current techniques, outcomes and the most common complications of megaendoprosthetic reconstruction following tumour resection.

METHODS

Selective literature review and discussion of current concepts and knowledge in megaendoprosthetic reconstruction against personal experience and treatment strategies.

RESULTS

Megaendoprosthetic reconstructions achieve good functional results and long-term limb salvage (ca. 90% of cases) in adolescent and adult patients. Still, periprosthetic infection and mechanical failure of joint components are among the most common complications observed. In infant and pre-teen children treated by reconstruction using a growing prosthesis, mandatory maintenance operations-in the process of elongating the implant-must also be considered when assessing complication risks.

CONCLUSIONS

Megaendoprosthetic reconstructions of osteoarticular defects are a standard procedure in adolescent and adult patients. Despite a substantial complication rate, limb salvage is achieved in a majority of patients. When using growing prostheses in younger children, one needs to be aware of additional servicing procedures that occur independently of those arising from complications.

Causes and Frequencies of Reoperations After Endoprosthetic Reconstructions for Extremity Tumor Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Excision of bone tumors and endoprosthetic reconstruction allow patients early weightbearing and a potential functional advantage compared with amputation. These reconstructions do not restore the limb to normal status, however, and patients are subject to complications that may result in revision or loss of the limb. Because better understanding of these complications based on current information might help the patient and surgeon in decision-making, we undertook a systematic review of studies published on this topic.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the primary modes and proportion of failure of tumor endoprostheses in patients undergoing reconstruction after excision of primary extremity bone sarcomas?

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for all studies published from April 15, 1998, to April 15, 2018. Three reviewers independently reviewed studies reporting endoprosthetic reconstruction survival and events requiring revision for primary extremity bone tumors treated with endoprosthetic reconstruction for inclusion and performed independent data extraction. We excluded all studies with fewer than five patients, any systematic review/meta-analyses, and any study not reporting on primary extremity bone tumors. All discrepancies were resolved by the study's senior author. Data extracted from included studies were any reoperation event for wound dehiscence, any operative fixation for a pathologic fracture, and any revision of the primary endoprosthesis for implant wear or breakage, deep infection not amenable to prosthesis retention, or for local recurrence. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence with the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) approach with a higher MINORS score representative of a more methodologically rigorous study with a total possible score of 16 points for noncomparative and 24 points for comparative studies. Forty-nine studies met criteria for inclusion from an initial search return of 904 studies, of which no studies were randomized controlled trials. From a total patient population of 2721, there was a mean followup of 93 months (range, 1-516 months) with loss to followup or death occurring in 447 of 2118 (21%) patients with six studies not providing loss to followup data. The mean MINORS score was 14 for prospective studies and 11 for retrospective studies.

RESULTS

Overall, there were 1283 reoperations among the 2721 (47%) patients. Reoperation for mechanical endoprosthetic events (soft tissue dehiscence or periarticular soft tissue instability, aseptic loosening, or implant wear/fracture) occurred in 907 of 2721 (33%) patients. Aseptic loosening occurred at a mean of 75 months (range, 1-376 months) in 212 of 315 patients (67%). Deep infection requiring removal of the initial prosthesis occurred in 247 of 2721 (9%) patients with deep infection occurring at a mean of 24 months (range, 1-372 months) in the 190 infections (77%) with time to infection data available. Local recurrence rates requiring revision or amputation occurred in 129 (5%) of all patients. There was an overall primary endoprosthesis survival rate without any surgical reintervention of 63% among reporting studies at a mean of 79 months followup.

CONCLUSIONS

Failures of endoprosthetic reconstructions after extremity tumor surgery are common, most often resulting from implant wear or fracture, aseptic loosening, and infection. Importantly, the aggregated data are the first to attempt to quantify the time to specific complication types within this patient population. Deep infection not amenable to endoprosthesis retention appears to occur approximately 2 years postoperatively in most patients, with aseptic loosening occurring most commonly at 75 months. Although endoprosthetic reconstruction is one of the most common forms of reconstruction after bone tumor resection, the quality of published evidence regarding this procedure is of low quality with high loss to followup and data quality limiting interstudy analysis. The quality of the evidence is low with high loss to followup and inconsistent reporting of times to reintervention events. Although the most common modes of endoprosthetic failure in this population are well known, creation of quality prospective, collaborative databases would assist in clarifying and informing important elements of the followup process for these patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study.

[New surgical treatment options for bone tumors]

Primary bone neoplasms can be classified into benign, locally/aggressive and rarely metastasizing and malignant tumors. Patients with benign tumors usually undergo surgical treatment in cases of local symptoms, mainly consisting of pain or functional deficits due to compression of important anatomical structures, such as nerves or blood vessels. Locally/aggressive and rarely metastasizing tumors exhibit an infiltrative growth pattern, so that surgical treatment is necessary to prevent further destruction of bone leading to local instability. Finally, the surgical treatment of malignant tumors is, with few exceptions, considered to be a prerequisite for long-term survival, either alone or in combination with systemic chemotherapy. Whereas the main objective of surgery in the treatment of benign tumors is relief of local symptoms with a minimum amount of damage to healthy tissue and minimizing the risk of local recurrence while ensuring bone stability in locally aggressive and rarely metastasizing tumors, the primary goal in the operative treatment of bone sarcomas is the resection of the tumor with clear surgical margins followed by defect reconstruction and the preservation of function. This review examines the current developments in the surgical treatment of primary bone neoplasms with respect to the management of the tumors and novel reconstructive options.