Is total femoral replacement for non-oncologic and oncologic indications a safe procedure in limb preservation surgery? A single center experience of 22 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.

Characteristics and Epidemiology of Megaprostheses Infections: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Megaprostheses were first employed in oncological orthopedic surgery, but more recently, additional applications have arisen. These implants are not without any risks and device failure is quite frequent. The most feared complication is undoubtedly the implants' infection; however, the exact incidence is still unknown. This systematic review aims to estimate in the current literature the overall incidence of megaprosthesis infections and to investigate possible risk/protective factors.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for studies published from July 1971 to December 2023 using specific keywords. To be included, studies needed to report either the megaprosthesis anatomical site, and/or whether the megaprosthesis was coated, and/or the surgical indication as oncological or non-oncological reasons.

RESULTS

The initial literature search resulted in 1281 studies. We evaluated 10,456 patients and the overall infection rate was 12%. In cancer patients, the infection rate was 22%, while in non-oncological patients, this was 16% (trauma 12%, mechanical failure 17%, prosthetic joint infections 26%). The overall infection rates comparing coated and uncoated implants were 10% and 12.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of megaprosthesis implants is increasing considerably. In traumatological patients, the infection rate is lower compared to all the other subgroups, while the infection rate remains higher in the cancer patient group. As these devices become more common, focused studies exploring epidemiological data, clinical outcomes, and long-term complications are needed to address the uncertainties in prevention and management.

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.

Megaprosthesis use in Paprosky III/IV femoral defects in non-oncological patients: analysis of survival, clinical, and functional outcomes after an average follow-up of five years

PURPOSE

To determine the survival and patient-reported outcomes in non-oncological patients treated with proximal femoral resection (PFR) using MEG for femoral reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 16 patients. Demographic variables and complications developed were analyzed. Clinical-functional outcomes were measured using the modified Harris score (mHSS), numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score. MEG survival was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

Average follow-up was 5 years (range, 1-9). The 75% of patients were overweight and women with an average age of 74.2 ± 5.9-years (BMI of 28.5 ± 4.2 kg/m2). The main cause of MEG was periprosthetic infection (43.7%). The 50% of patients had post-surgical complications regarding with MEG, being the most frequent seromas and MEG dislocation. Implant survival was 93.4% and 80.9% at 3 and 7 years of follow-up, respectively. The functional results at the end of the follow-up with respect to the pre-surgical state improved from 9.5 ± 2.6 to 3 ± 0.9 mean NPRS and 26.5 ± 6.8 to 69.5 ± 13.5 mean mHHS, p < 0.001, respectively. The mean MSTS score was 68.1% that these results were considered excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

The MEG for reconstruct III-IV femoral defects is a good therapeutic option that offers an acceptable clinical-functional result. Short-term and medium-term survival was greater than 80%. The most frequent complications are seromas and MEG dislocation. The use of constrained liner and abductor system reconstruction is essential to prevent the dislocation.

Two-Stage Exchange Using a Total Femur Spacer in the Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infection - Spacer Complications and Implant Survivorships

BACKGROUND

Chronic periprosthetic joint infection after revision hip and knee arthroplasties can lead to subsequent massive femoral bone loss. In these cases, resection of the residual femur and placement of an antibiotic total femoral spacer can be an option to salvage the limb.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective analysis of 32 patients (median age 67 years; range 15-93; 18 women) who underwent placement of a total femur spacer for chronic periprosthetic joint infection with massive femoral bone loss between 2010 and 2019 as part of a planned two-stage exchange. The median follow-up period amounted to 46 months (range, 1-149). Implant and limb survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Potential risk factors for failure were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 34% (11 of 32) of patients having a spacer-associated complication, and 25% underwent revision for this reason. After the first stage, 92% were considered infection-free. There were 84% of patients who underwent second-stage reimplantation of a total femoral arthroplasty using a modular megaprosthetic implant. Infection-free implant survival was 85% after 2 years and 53% after 5 years. There were 44% of patients who underwent amputation after a median time of 40 months (range, 2-110). Most commonly, coagulase-negative staphylococci were cultured at first-stage surgery, while polymicrobial growth was most common at reinfection.

CONCLUSION

Total femur spacers can lead to infection control in over 90% of cases with a reasonable complication rate for the spacer itself. However, the reinfection and subsequent amputation rate after second-stage megaprosthetic total femoral arthroplasty is around 50%.

Megaprosthesis in Non-Oncologic Settings-A Systematic Review of the Literature

Modular megaprostheses (MPs) are commonly used after bone-tumor resection, but they can offer a limb salvage solution in massive bone defects. The aim of this systematic review of the Literature is to provide a comprehensive data collection concerning the use of MPs in non-oncologic cases, and to provide an overview of this topic, especially from an epidemiologic point of view. Three different databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched for relevant articles, and further references were obtained by cross-referencing. Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting on cases of MP in non-oncologic cases. A total of 2598 MPs were retrieved. Among these, 1353 (52.1%) were distal femur MPs, 941 (36.2%) were proximal femur MPs, 29 (1.4%) were proximal tibia MPs and 259 (10.0%) were total femur MPs. Megaprostheses were most commonly used to treat periprosthetic fractures (1158 cases, 44.6%), in particular in the distal femur (859, 74.2%). Overall, complications were observed in 513 cases (19.7%). Type I (soft tissue failures) and type IV (infection) according to the Henderson classification were the most frequent (158 and 213, respectively). In conclusion, patients with severe post-traumatic deformities and/or significant bone loss who have had previous septic complications should be considered as oncologic patients, not because of the disease, but because of the limited therapeutic options available. The benefits of this treatment include relatively short operative times and immediate weight-bearing, thus making MP particularly attractive in the lower limb.

Telescoping Allograft Prosthetic Composite (APC) Reconstruction of the Femur Following Revision Arthroplasty for Neglected Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH)

Although uncommon, neglected developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) poses a technically demanding problem for treating surgeons. Due to the congenital malformation of the native hip joint and distortion of the surrounding soft tissue, addressing limb-length discrepancy is intricate. Despite detailed planning and meticulous soft tissue handling, complications can be difficult to avoid in these patients even under experienced hands. In this case report, we present a 73-year-old lady with neglected DDH who had undergone initial total hip arthroplasty and subsequent revision surgery that failed due to aseptic loosening. Due to limited length in the distal femur, we used a telescoping allograft prosthetic composite (APC) to provide adequate length to the native distal femur during revision with proximal femur fixation. This technique can help avoid the need for total femur replacement (TFR) surgery, which is more invasive and may require tibia replacement.

Preserving the rectus femoris and improving limb function after total femoral prosthesis replacement following resection of femoral malignant tumors

Background

Current research is focused on the factors that influence the maintenance of limb function after total femoral replacement. This retrospective study investigated the difference in functional outcomes in patients with invasion of the rectus femoris vs. an intact rectus femoris that underwent total femoral replacement with a modular total femur prosthesis.

Methods

The medical records of patients who underwent total femoral replacement with a modular total femur prosthesis between July 2010 and March 2017 at our institute were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: group A had invasion of the rectus femoris and group B had an intact rectus femoris. Functional status was assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Rating Scale (MSTS) and the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Complications were assessed using the International Society of Limb Salvage classification that was published in 2011 and modified in 2014.

Results

The mean total MSTS score (23.0 ± 4.8 vs. 17.6 ± 3.1; P = 0.02) and the mean total HHS score (80.17 ± 6.24 vs. 55.38 ± 13.30; P = 0.001) were significantly higher in patients with intact rectus femoris compared with patients with invasion of the rectus femoris. Patients with an intact rectus femoris achieved significantly better limb function (support and gait) and active range of motion (P &lt; 0.05). The overall complication rate was 35.7%.

Conclusions

Functional outcomes after total femoral replacement were significantly better in patients with an intact rectus femoris compared with patients with invasion of the rectus femoris, possibly because more muscle mass can be preserved around the femur in patients with an intact rectus femoris.

Single-Stage Revision of Infected Total Femoral Replacement

We present 2 cases of infected total femur prosthetic devices treated with a single-stage revision with extensive irrigation and debridement, followed by reimplantation with a prosthesis coated in antibiotic-impregnated cement. Single-stage total femoral replacement with antibiotic-eluting cement around the device was used for 2 cases of limb salvage arthroplasty to reduce complications, maintain patient function, and minimize hospital-associated cost. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(5):e280-e283.].

Implant Survival, Clinical Outcome and Complications of Megaprosthetic Reconstructions Following Sarcoma Resection

Simple Summary

Malignant bone and soft tissue tumors are usually surgically removed with an envelope of healthy tissue as a barrier. If located in the long bones of the upper and lower extremity, this approach leads to a large bone defect commonly affecting a joint. One way to rebuild the bone defect and the neighboring joint is the use of a megaprosthesis that is anchored in the remaining bone comparable to a conventional joint replacement. In general this approach is popular as it provides early stability and allows the affected patient to begin rehabilitation early on. However, complications leading to long-term unplanned reoperation are common. This article provides an overview of current implant survival, types of complication and long-term outcomes of megaprostheses used following tumor resection.

Abstract

Megaprosthetic reconstruction of segmental bone defects following sarcoma resection is a frequently chosen surgical approach in orthopedic oncology. While the use of megaprostheses has gained popularity over the last decades and such implants are increasingly used for metastatic reconstructions and in non-tumor cases, there still is a high risk of long-term complications leading to revision surgery. This article investigates current implant survivorship, frequency and types of complications as well as functional outcomes of upper and lower limb megaprosthetic reconstructions.

Different outcomes after proximal femoral replacement in oncologic and failed revision arthroplasty patients - a retrospective cohort study

Background

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a technically demanding procedure commonly performed to restore extensive, oncological or non-oncological bone defects in a severely debilitated patient collective. Depending on different indications, a varying outcome has been reported. The aim of the study was to assess the functional outcomes and complication rates of PFR with the modular Munich-Luebeck (MML) femoral megaprosthesis (ESKA/Orthodynamics, Luebeck, Germany), and to highlight outcome differences in patients treated for failed revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) or malignant bone disease.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients treated with PFR for failed THA or malignant tumor disease between 2000 and 2012 was performed. Patient satisfaction, functional outcome (VAS, SF-12, MSTS, WOMAC, TESS), complications and failure types (Henderson’s failure classification) were assessed. A Kaplan-Meier analysis determined implant survival.

Results

Fifty-eight patients (age: 69.9 years, BMI: 26.7 kg/m², mean follow-up: 66 months) were included. The mean SF-12 (physical / mental) was 37.9 / 48.4. MSTS averaged 68% at final follow-up, while mean WOMAC and TESS scored 37.8 and 59.5. TESS and WOMAC scores demonstrated significantly worse outcomes in the revision group (RG) compared to the tumor group (TG). Overall complication rate was 43.1%, and dislocation was the most common complication (27.6%). Implant survival rates were 83% (RG) and 85% (TG; p = n.s.) at 5 years, while 10-year survival was 57% (RG) and 85% (TG, p < 0.05).

Conclusions

PFR is a salvage procedure for restoration of mechanical integrity and limb preservation after extensive bone loss. Complications rates are considerably high.

Functional outcomes and 10-year implant survival rate were worse in the RG compared to the TG. Strict indications and disease-specific patient education are essential in preoperative planning and prognosis.

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.

Outcomes and complications following non-oncologic total femoral replacement

BACKGROUND

Non-oncologic total femoral replacement (TFR) is utilised as a limb-salvage option in the setting of massive bone loss during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, complication rates, including infection and reoperation, remain a concern.

METHODS

In this study, 16 consecutive TFRs from a single institution with an average clinical follow-up of 4 years were retrospectively reviewed. Indications for TFR, previous surgeries, implants used, complications, reoperations, and ambulatory status at final follow-up were recorded.

RESULTS

The reoperation rate was 50%, and those patients averaged 2 additional surgeries after TFR. The most common reason for reoperation was infection with a 33% incidence of a new periprosthetic infection and an overall infection rate of 44% (7/16). 6/7 were managed with irrigation and debridement and implant retention. Dual-mobility and constrained acetabular liners were used consistently, and no patient experienced a subsequent dislocation. At final follow-up, 81% were ambulatory but only 2 patients (13%) could walk without an assistive device. No patient required amputation.

CONCLUSIONS

While TFR achieved limb salvage in all patients with fair clinical outcomes, patients were at high risk for new or persistent infection and reoperation. Dual-mobility and constrained acetabular liners were effective in preventing dislocation is this cohort.

Does a Competing Risk Analysis Show Differences in the Cumulative Incidence of Revision Surgery Between Patients with Oncologic and Non-oncologic Conditions After Distal Femur Replacement?

BACKGROUND

Distal femur replacement is frequently used for limb salvage after bone tumor resections. It is also used in patients with severe bone loss because of traumatic conditions or revision TKA. Some studies on distal femur replacement reported on revision-free survival without distinguishing between patients with oncologic diagnoses and those without, although these patients might be incomparable because of their differences in important patient- and disease-specific characteristics. This may lead to an inaccurate and undifferentiated interpretation of the results of survival analyses.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the overall cumulative incidence of revision surgery after cemented and cementless distal femoral replacement, as determined with a competing risk analysis? (2) Does the cumulative incidence of revision surgery change over time? (3) Are there differences in the cumulative incidence of revision surgery between patients with oncologic conditions and those without who are treated with cemented or cementless distal femoral replacement?

METHODS

A total of 403 patients were possible candidates for distal femoral replacement. Of these, 56 patients elected to undergo different procedures, 83 were excluded because an expendable growing prosthesis was implanted, and 28 were lost to follow-up. Therefore, 229 patients who underwent distal femoral replacement for oncologic or non-oncologic reasons between 1983 and 2016 were retrospectively included in this study. The type of fixation method (cemented or cementless) was obtained from the patients' medical records, operation reports, and radiographic analyses from plain radiographs. All radiographs were standardized and obtained at standard time intervals in our institution. No algorithm regarding the fixation approach was followed. According to our data, patients receiving cementless fixation were younger and therefore likely to be more active than those receiving cemented fixation. The median follow-up duration of the overall cohort was 85 months (range 0.1-391 months). Patients who died or had revision surgery before the 2-year minimum follow-up interval were adequately considered using competing risk calculation. The reasons for revision surgery were classified using the classification system proposed by the International Society for Limb Salvage. A competing risk analysis was performed to estimate the cumulative incidence function of revision, accounting for death as a competing event. To evaluate the influence of potential prognostic factors, including diagnosis (oncologic versus non-oncologic), fixation (cemented versus cementless), year of distal femoral replacement, age, and sex on the occurrence of revision surgery, univariate and multivariable Fine and Gray models were applied.

RESULTS

The competing risks analysis revealed cumulative incidences of revision surgery for any cause (Types 1 to 5) of 26% (95% CI, 20.3%-31.9%) at 12 months, 37.9% (95% CI, 31.3%-44.4%) at 24 months, 52.6% (95% CI, 45.1%-59.5%) at 5 years, and 58.2% (95% CI, 50.1%-65.4%) at 10 years for all patients. Rotating hinge-type prostheses showed a lower cumulative incidence of revision surgery (41.6%; 95% CI, 31.8%-51%) than fixed-hinge prostheses did (64%; 95% CI, 50.5%-74.5% ) at 5 years (Gray's test: p = 0.01). According to the multivariate Fine and Gray model, the year of surgery did not have any effect on the risk of revision surgery (1994 to 2003: hazard ratio 0.70; 95% CI, 0.46-1.07); 2004 to 2016: HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.52-1.34; p = 0.26). The multivariate analysis, adjusted for disease, sex, age, cementation, and year of surgery, revealed a difference in the risk of revision surgery between patients with oncologic disease and those with non-oncologic disease (HR 0.44 for oncologic versus non-oncologic; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87; p = 0.02) and a reduction in the risk of overall revision with cemented fixation in patients with oncologic disease (HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.98; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that even with newer implants, there was a high incidence of revision surgery after distal femoral replacement. According to our analysis, patients with oncologic diagnoses have a lower likelihood of revision when the stem is cemented whereas the type of fixation did not impact patients with non-oncologic diagnoses. Because of differences in patient demographics (age, etiology of disease, and use of chemotherapy) and outcomes of fixation, oncologic and non-oncologic patients should be analyzed separately in survival studies about distal femoral replacement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

High complication and revision rates after total femoral replacement: a retrospective single center analysis of indication, function, and complication

INTRODUCTION

Total femoral replacement (TFR) is a limb salvage procedure performed for large bony defects. However, it is often associated with major complications and reduced function. Data on limb preservation rates and functional outcomes after TFR are limited. The primary objective of this study is to assess indications, functional outcomes, and complications after TFR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all patients after TFR between 2006 and 2016. All patients received a modular mega endoprosthesis (MUTARS^®). Patients were grouped according to their initial indication for TFR: (1) fracture, (2) tumor, or (3) infection. We evaluated (i) patient survival, (ii) postoperative function with the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (MSTS), knee strength, range of motion, and (iii) complications.

RESULTS

Between 2006 and 2016, TFR was performed in 22 patients with a mean age of 64 +/-17 years. Indications for TFR were tumor (n = 6), infection (n = 8) and fracture (n = 8). The mean follow-up (f/up) was 18 months. At final follow-up, mean MSTS was 24%. Mean knee flexion strength was reduced 63% compared to the contralateral leg (p = 0.004). At time of final f/up, 5 patients (22%) died, 5 (22%) underwent secondary hip exarticulation, and 12 (54%) suffered a major complication. At f/up, 11 patients had infections. Of these 11 patients, 5 died, 4 were treated with debridement, and 5 were treated with hip exarticulation. Fifteen patients survived with preserved limbs at f/up.

CONCLUSION

TFR is a salvage procedure with limited functional outcome and high complication rates. Nevertheless, the majority of our cohort could be treated successfully with limb salvage.

[Total endoprosthetic replacement of femur, humerus and tibia]

Improvements in diagnostics and effectiveness of chemotherapy have resulted in most patients with primary malignant bone tumours being candidates for limb salvage surgery. Herewith, the use of modern modular tumour endoprostheses allows for the replacement of all big joints and even entire long bones such as the femur, humerus and tibia. In this article, we focus on individual prerequisites for and challenges with performing a total endoprosthetic reconstruction of the above-mentioned anatomic structures. Additionally, data from the literature with regards to functional outcome, problems and complications are presented.

[Advances in total femur replacement]

Objective

To summarize the advances of total femur replacement in recent years.

Methods

The literature related to total femur replacement was reviewed, and the indications, techniques, prosthesis design, complications, rehabilitation, and function were summarized.

Results

The indication of total femur replacement is a wide involvement of the femur, skip lesions and a huge bone defect in revision. Watson-Jone is the main incision in the proximal, and then the full length of the thigh to the patella. Vascular and nerve bundle, abduction muscles are well protected, and combined or costumed prosthesis are replaced. The prosthesis design progresses, showing a diversified prostheses. Complication is frequent and varied. Rehabilitation in early stage is physical therapy, weight training is evolutionary. The main function evaluation system is Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score.

Conclusion

Total femur replacement is effective in limb salvage. Large sample size and long-term follow-up study should be carried out to unify indications and functional exercise standards and reduce postoperative complications.

Head salvage of an infected neck of femur fracture in an adult: a case report

Head preservation of an infected neck of femur fracture appears to be extremely rare with no described cases in literature till date. We present the outcome of head salvage in a young adult with an infected neck of femur nonunion who in addition had chronic osteomyelitic sequelae of his entire femur with reactivation of latent infection in the distal femoral diaphysis. Osteosynthesis was performed by means of cancellous screw fixation augmented with bone substitute following a failed attempt at salvage with a valgus intertrochanteric osteotomy. The patient had an excellent functional outcome with near normal hip range of movements at a follow-up of 5 years after union.