Five-year outcome of proximal femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasty for non-tumour indications

Antibiotic-Loaded Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylenes

The occurrence of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after total joint replacement constitutes a great burden for the patients and the healthcare system. Antibiotic-loaded polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement is often used in temporary spacers during antibiotic treatment. PMMA is not a load-bearing solution and needs to be replaced by a functional implant. Elution from the ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) bearing surface for drug delivery can combine functionality with the release of clinically relevant doses of antibiotics. In this study, the feasibility of incorporating a range of antibiotics into UHMWPE is investigated. Drug stability is assessed by thermo-gravimetric analysis and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Drug-loaded UHMWPEs are prepared by compression molding, using eight antibiotics at different loading. The predicted intra-articular concentrations of drugs eluted from UHMWPE are above minimum inhibitory concentration for at least 3 weeks against Staphylococci, which are the major causative bacteria for PJI. The antibacterial efficacy is confirmed for samples covering 2% of a representative knee implant in vitro over 72 h, showing that a small fraction of the implant surface loaded with antibiotics may be sufficient against Staphylococci.

Surgical Management of Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Hip and Knee Megaprostheses

Periprosthetic joint infection is a feared complication after the megaprosthetic reconstruction of oncologic and non-oncologic bone defects of including the knee or hip joint. Due to the relative rarity of these procedures, however, optimal management is debatable. Considering the expanding use of megaprostheses in revision arthroplasty and the high revision burden in orthopedic oncology, the risk of PJI is likely to increase over the coming years. In this non-systematic review article, we present and discuss current management options and the associated results focusing on studies from the last 15 years and studies from dedicated centers or study groups. The indication, surgical details and results in controlling infection are presented for debridement, antibiotics, irrigation and retention (DAIR) procedure with an exchange of the modular components, single-stage implant exchange, two-stage exchanges and ablative procedures.

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.

Factors Associated With Failure Following Proximal Femoral Replacement for Salvage Hip Surgery for Nononcologic Indications

BACKGROUND

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is used when extensive proximal femoral bone loss is encountered during revision total hip arthroplasty. However, further data on 5-to-10-year survivorship and predictors of failure are needed. Our aim was to assess the survivorship of contemporary PFRs used for nononcologic indications and determine factors associated with failure.

METHODS

A single-institution retrospective observational study was conducted between June 1, 2010 and August 31, 2021 for patients undergoing PFR for non-neoplastic indications. Patients were followed for a minimum of 6 months. Demographic, operative, clinical, and radiographic data were collected. Implant survivorship was determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis of 56 consecutive cemented PFRs in 50 patients.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 4 years, the mean Oxford Hip Score was 36.2 and patient satisfaction was rated at an average of 4.7 of 5 on the Likert scale. Radiographic evidence of femoral-sided aseptic loosening was determined in 2 PFRs at a median of 9.6 years. The 5-year survivorship with all-cause reoperation and revision as end points was 83.2% (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 70.1% to 91.0%) and 84.9% (95% CI: 72.0% to 92.2%), respectively. The 5-year survivorship was 92.3% (95% CI: 78.0% to 97.5%) for stem length > 90 mm compared to 68.4% (95% CI: 39.5% to 85.7%) for stem length ≤ 90 mm. A construct-to-stem length ratio (CSR) ≤ 1 was associated with a 91.7% (95% CI: 76.4% to 97.2%) survival, while a CSR > 1 was associated with a 73.6% (95% CI: 47.4% to 88.1%) survival.

CONCLUSION

A PFR stem length ≤ 90 mm and CSR > 1 were associated with increased rates of failure.

Silver-Coated Distal Femur Megaprosthesis in Chronic Infections with Severe Bone Loss: A Multicentre Case Series

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) and fracture-related infections (FRI) of the distal femur (DF) may result in massive bone defects. Treatment options include articulated silver-coated (SC) megaprosthesis (MP) in the context of a two-stage protocol. However, there is limited evidence in the literature on this topic. A retrospective review of the prospectively maintained databases of three Institutions was performed. Forty-five patients were included. The mean follow-up time was 43 ± 17.1 months. Eight (17.8%) patients had a recurrent infection. The estimated recurrence-free survival rate was 91.1% (93.5% PJI vs. 85.7% FRI) 2 years following MP implantation, and 75.7% (83.2% PJI vs. 64.3% FRI; p = 0.253) after 5 years. No statistically relevant difference was found according to the initial diagnosis (PJI vs. FRI). Among possible risk factors, only resection length was found to significantly worsen the outcomes in terms of infection control (p = 0.031). A total of eight complications not related to infection were found after reimplantation, but only five of them required further surgery. Above-the-knee amputation was performed in two cases (4.4%), both for reinfection. Articulated DF SC MP in a two-stage protocol is a safe and effective treatment for chronic knee infection with severe bone loss.

Management of complications of mega-implants following treatment of primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities

In recent years, indications for implanting mega-implants were established in managing major bone defects linked to revision arthroplasty due to loosening, periprosthetic fractures, re-implantation following periprosthetic joint infection, non-union following fractures as well as complex intraarticular primary fractures. This study was conducted to discuss and analyze the strategy of diagnosis and management of complications following the use of mega-implants in treating primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities. This is a monocentric retrospective study. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent implantation of a megaendoprosthesis due to periprosthetic or primary fractures of the lower extremity between January 2010 and February 2023 were identified from the authors' hospital information system. We identified 96 patients with equal numbers of fractures (71 periprosthetic fractures and 25 primary fractures). 90 cases out of 96 were investigated in this study. The drop-out rate was 6.25% (six cases). The average follow-up period was 22 months (1 to 8 years) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. The diagnosis of complications was provided on the basis of subjective symptoms, clinical signs, radiological findings and laboratory investigations such as C-reactive protein, leucocyte count and the microbiological findings. The indications for implantations of modular mega-implants of the lower extremities were periprosthetic fractures (65 cases/72.22%) and primary fractures (25 cases/27.78%). Pathological fractures due to malignancy were encountered in 23 cases (25.56%), in one case due to primary tumor (1.11%) and 22 cases due to metastatic lesions (24.44%). Two cases (2.22%) presented with primary intraarticular fractures with severe osteoporosis and primary arthrosis. In all cases with malignancy staging was performed. Regarding localization, proximal femur replacement was encountered in 60 cases (66.67%), followed by distal femur replacement (28 cases/31.11%) and total femur replacement (2 cases/2.22%). The overall complication rate was 23.33% (21 complications in 21 patients). The most common complication was dislocation which was encountered in nine cases (10%), all following proximal femoral replacement (9 cases out of 60, making 15% of cases with proximal femoral replacement). The second most common complication was infection (six cases, 6.67%), followed by four aseptic loosenings (4.44%), further intraoperative periprosthetic fracture in one case (1.11%) and a broken implant in one case (1.11%). We noticed no cases with wear and tear of the polyethylene components and no cases of disconnections of the modular components. Mega-endoprostheses enable versatile management options in the treatment of primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities. The rate of complications such as loosening, implant failure, dislocation and infection are within an acceptable range in this preliminary analysis. However, implantation of mega-endoprostheses must be strictly indicated due the limited salvage options following surgery.

What Is the Risk of Dislocation and Revision in Proximal Femoral Replacement with Dual-mobility Articulation After Two-stage Revision for Periprosthetic Hip Infection?

BACKGROUND

Dislocation is a major complication of revision THA after two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The likelihood of dislocation can be particularly high if megaprosthetic proximal femoral replacement (PFR) has been performed during a second-stage reimplantation. Dual-mobility acetabular components are an established way of reducing the instability risk in revision THA; however, the likelihood of dislocation for dual-mobility reconstructions in the setting of a two-stage PFR has not been studied systematically, although patients with these reconstructions might be at an increased risk.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What is the risk of dislocation and revision for dislocation in patients who underwent PFR with a dual-mobility acetabular component as part of two-stage exchange for hip PJI? (2) What is the risk of all-cause implant revision and what other procedures were performed (apart from revision for a dislocation) in these patients? (3) What potential patient-related and procedure-related factors are associated with dislocation?

METHODS

This was a retrospective study from a single academic center including procedures performed between 2010 and 2017. During the study period, 220 patients underwent two-stage revision for chronic hip PJI. Two-stage revision was the approach of choice for chronic infections, and we did not perform single-stage revisions for this indication during the study period. Thirty-three percent (73 of 220) of patients underwent second-stage reconstruction with a single-design, modular, megaprosthetic PFR because of femoral bone loss, using a cemented stem. A cemented dual-mobility cup was the approach of choice for acetabular reconstruction in the presence of a PFR; however, 4% (three of 73) were reconstructed with a bipolar hemiarthroplasty to salvage an infected saddle prosthesis, leaving 70 patients with a dual-mobility acetabular component and a PFR (84% [59 of 70]) or total femoral replacement (16% [11 of 70]). We used two similar designs of an unconstrained cemented dual-mobility cup during the study period. The median (interquartile range) patient age was 73 years (63 to 79 years), and 60% (42 of 70) of patients were women. The mean follow-up period was 50 ± 25 months with a minimum follow-up of 24 months for patients who did not undergo revision surgery or died (during the study period, 10% [seven of 70] died before 2 years). We recorded patient-related and surgery-related details from the electronic patient records and investigated all revision procedures performed until December 2021. Patients who underwent closed reduction for dislocation were included. Radiographic measurements of cup positioning were performed using supine AP radiographs obtained within the first 2 weeks after surgery using an established digital method. We calculated the risk for revision and dislocation using a competing-risk analysis with death as a competing event, providing 95% confidence intervals. Differences in dislocation and revision risks were assessed with Fine and Gray models providing subhazard ratios. All p values were two sided and the p value for significance was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

The risk of dislocation (using a competing-risks survivorship estimator) was 17% (95% CI 9% to 32%) at 5 years, and the risk of revision for dislocation was 12% (95% CI 5% to 24%) at 5 years among patients treated with dual-mobility acetabular components as part of a two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. The risk of all-cause implant revision (using a competing-risk estimator, except for dislocation) was 20% (95% CI 12% to 33%) after 5 years. Twenty-three percent (16 of 70) of patients underwent revision surgery for reinfection and 3% (two of 70) of patients underwent stem exchange for a traumatic periprosthetic fracture. No patients underwent revision for aseptic loosening. We found no differences in patient-related and procedure-related factors or acetabular component positioning for patients with dislocation with the numbers available; however, patients with total femoral replacements had a higher likelihood of dislocation (subhazard ratio 3.9 [95% CI 1.1 to 13.3]; p = 0.03) and revision for a dislocation (subhazard ratio 4.4 [95% CI 1 to 18.5]; p = 0.04) than those who received PFR.

CONCLUSION

Although dual-mobility bearings might be an intuitive potential choice to reduce the dislocation risk in revision THA, there is a considerable dislocation risk for PFR after two-stage surgery for PJI, particularly in patients with total femoral replacements. Although the use of an additional constraint might appear tempting, published results vary tremendously, and future studies should compare the performance of tripolar constrained implants to that of unconstrained dual-mobility cups in patients with PFR to reduce the risk of instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

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.

The major proximal femoral defects: megaprosthesis in non oncological patients - A case series

We identified 39 patients (23 female and 16 male) underwent hip revisions through mega-prosthesis. The most common causes were periprosthetic fractures, periprosthetic osteolysis and consequences of infected arthroplasty. The average follow-up was 5 years (2.1 to 6.5), and average age was 69 years (47 to 78). At the final follow-up all the implants resulted functional and osteointegrated. The Merle D'Aubignè and Postel hip rating scale was used for the evaluation, better results were observed in periprosthetic fractures. Postoperative complications occurred in eight patients. Thus, megaprosthesis were a reasonable surgical option in the management of major femoral defects.

Bone loss in aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: management and outcomes

Background

Although several techniques and implants have been developed to address bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), management of these defects remains challenging. This review article discusses the indications and management options of bone loss following total knee arthroplasty based on preoperative workup and intraoperative findings.

Main text

Various imaging modalities are available that can be augmented with intraoperative examination to provide a clear classification of a bony defect. For this reason, the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification is frequently used to guide treatment. The AORI provides a reliable system by which surgeons can classify lesions based on their size and involvement of surrounding structures. AORI type I defects are managed with cement with or without screws as well as impaction bone grafting. For AORI type IIA lesions, wedge or block augmentation is available. For large defects encompassing AORI type IIB and type III defects, bulk allografts, cones, sleeves, and megaprostheses can be used in conjunction with intramedullary stems.

Conclusions

Treatment of bone loss in rTKA continues to evolve as different techniques and approaches have been validated through short- and mid-term follow-up. Extensive preoperative planning with imaging, accurate intraoperative evaluation of the bone loss, and comprehensive understanding of all the implant options available for the bone loss are paramount to success.

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in non-oncological femoral megaprosthesis infections: minimum 5 year follow-up

PURPOSE

Megaprostheses are increasingly utilised outside of the oncological setting, and remain at significant risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Debridement, antibiotic, and implant retention (DAIR) is an established treatment for PJI, however its use in non-oncological patients with femoral megaprostheses has not been widely reported. There are significant differences in patient physiology, treatment goals, and associated risks between these patient cohorts.

METHODS

We identified 14 patients who underwent DAIR for a PJI of their femoral megaprostheses, between 2000 and 2014, whom had their index procedure secondary to non-oncological indications. Patients were managed as part of a multidisciplinary team, with our standardised surgical technique including exchange of all mobile parts, and subsequent antibiotic therapy for a minimum of 3 months. Patients were followed up for a minimum of 5 years.

RESULTS

Patients included six proximal femoral replacements, five distal femoral replacements, and three total femoral replacements. No patients were lost to follow-up. There were six males and eight females, with a mean age of 67.2 years, and mean ASA of 2.3. Nine patients (64.3%) successfully cleared their infection following DAIR at a minimum of 5 year follow-up. Five patients (35.7%) required further revision surgery, with four patients cleared of infection. No patients who underwent DAIR alone suffered complications as a result of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DAIR in these complex patients can lead to successful outcomes, but the risk of further revision remains high. The success rate (64.3%) remains on par with other studies evaluating DAIR in megaprostheses and in primary arthroplasty. This study indicates judicious use of DAIR can be an appropriate part of the treatment algorithm.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Dual mobility cups associated with proximal femoral replacement in nontumoral indications: Results and complications

INTRODUCTION

Reconstruction of extensive proximal femoral bone loss is a major challenge during total hip arthroplasty (THA). Proximal femoral replacement (PFR), initially used for bone tumors, is an alternative to allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction. However, PFRs present a high complication rate, particularly related to dislocation. Moreover, dual mobility cups (DMCs) are effective in preventing dislocation, and no study has yet assessed their association with PFRs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the dislocation and complication rates in THA using PFRs with DMCs.

HYPOTHESIS

The use of a DMC decreases the dislocation rate associated with PFRs in nontumoral indications.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2017, 66 PFRs associated with a DMC (40 women, mean age=71 years [26-94]) were included in our total joint registry and retrospectively reviewed. The main indications were complex periprosthetic and pertrochanteric fractures (26 THAs, 40%), aseptic loosening (22 THAs, 33%) and periprosthetic joint infections (18 THAs, 27%). A single design of PFR implant was used (Global Modular Replacement System (GMRS), Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA) with an uncemented stem in 54 THAs (82%).

RESULTS

Eighteen complications (27%) were reported at a mean follow-up of 4.6 years [2-10]: 5 dislocations (7.5%), 9 periprosthetic joint infections (13.6%), 2 aseptic loosening (3%) and 2 femur fractures (3%). Overall survivorship at 5 years was 72% (95% CI: 58-82). Survivorship free from dislocation was 94% (95% CI: 85-98) at 1 year. The mean Harris Hip Score was 70±16.4 [26-100] at latest follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The use of DMCs limits the risk of PFR dislocation, in comparison to other series in the literature that used large femoral heads, without compromising implant survivorship. In addition, DMCs make it possible to overcome the potential risks of mechanical failure associated with constrained acetabular components.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective cohort.

Proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic conditions: a systematic review on current outcomes

Proximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a well-established treatment for neoplasia of the proximal femur. The use of this surgical technique for non-neoplastic conditions has increased over the years. We carried out a systematic review of the literature to study the indications, complications, and functional results when PFR is used for non-neoplastic conditions. Twenty-seven studies were included in the review with a total of 828 PFRs with a mean follow-up of 50 months (range 1-225 months). The main indications were infection (28%), periprosthetic fracture (27%), aseptic loosening (22%), and fracture (16%). The rate of reoperation was 20.3% overall. The overall revision rate was 15.4%. The main complications were dislocation (10.2%) and infection (7.3%). After 2010, the rates of reoperation (25.5% versus 18.2%), loosening (9.4% versus 3.2%), and dislocation (15.7% versus 7.9%) were lower than before 2010. The 30-day mortality ranged from 0% to 9%. The hip function scores improved post-surgery. In conclusion, the use of PFR in non-neoplastic conditions remains a marginal tool, associated with low direct mortality and high complication rates, but we expect its use to increase in the near future.

Worse Outcomes Are Associated With Proximal Femoral Replacement Following Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are often used in the setting of severe bone loss. As osteolysis has become less common, PFR may be used to address other causes of bone loss such as infection or periprosthetic fracture. The aim of this study is to investigate the clinical outcomes of PFR for non-neoplastic conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 46 patients undergoing PFR at a single institution was performed. The electronic records were reviewed to extract relevant information including the reason for use of PFR, surgical variables, follow-up, and complications. Survivorship curves were generated and differences in survivorship were evaluated using the log-rank test. Radiographic evaluation was also performed.

RESULTS

Using revision as an endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier analysis of the entire cohort demonstrated a survival rate of 74% at 1 year and 67% at 5 years. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection demonstrated the lowest survivorship with a failure rate of 47%. Furthermore, a high dislocation rate at 17.4% (n = 8) was observed. The use of dual-mobility articulation was effective in reducing dislocation.

CONCLUSION

PFR is a valuable reconstructive option for patients with massive proximal femoral bone loss. This study demonstrates that patients with periprosthetic joint infection who undergo PFR reconstruction are at very high risk of subsequent failure, most commonly from reinfection and instability. The use of a dual-mobility articulation in association with PFR appears to help mitigate risk of subsequent dislocation.

Proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic revision hip arthroplasty : five-year results

Aims

With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases.

Methods

A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS).

Results

At mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years.

Conclusion

Dislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229–235.

Megaprostheses for the revision of infected hip arthroplasties with severe bone loss

Background

Periprosthetic hip infections with severe proximal femoral bone loss may require the use of limb salvage techniques, but no agreement exists in literature regarding the most effective treatment. Aim of this study is to analyze the infection eradication rate and implant survival at medium-term follow-up in patients treated with megaprostheses for periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss.

Methods

Twenty-one consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed at a mean 64-month follow-up (24–120). Functional and pain scores, microbiological, radiological and intraoperative findings were registered. Kaplan Meier survival analysis and log rank test were used for infection free survival and implant survival analyses.

Results

The infection eradication rate was 90.5%, with an infection free survival of 95.2% at 2 years (95%CI 70.7–99.3) and 89.6%(95%CI 64.3–97.3) at 5 years. Only two patients required major implant revisions for aseptic implant loosening. The most frequent complication was dislocation (38.1%). The major revision-free survival of implants was 95.2% (95%CI 70.7–99.3) at 2 years and 89.6% (95%CI 64.3–97.3) at 5 years. The overall implant survival was 83.35% (CI95% 50.7–93.94) at 2 and 5 years. Subgroup analyses (cemented versus cementless MPs, coated versus uncoated MPs) revealed no significant differences at log rank test, but its reliability was limited by the small number of patients included.

Conclusions

Proximal femoral arthroplasty is useful to treat periprosthetic hip infections with severe bone loss, providing good functional results with high infection eradication rates and rare major revisions at medium-term follow-up. No conclusions can be drawn on the role of cement and coatings.

One-Stage Hip Revision Arthroplasty Using Megaprosthesis in Severe Bone Loss of The Proximal Femur Due to Radiological Diffuse Osteomyelitis

Managing substantial proximal and/or distal femoral bone defects is one of the biggest challenges in chronic hip periprosthetic joint infection. Most authors use two-stage arthroplasty with a temporary antibiotic-loaded cement spacer for the management of these patients. In this study, we show our experience with one-stage exchange arthroplasty in managing severe bone defects due to radiological-extensive proximal femoral osteomyelitis. Two patients were included in the study. They showed radiological-extensive proximal femoral osteomyelitis, and they were treated with one-stage exchange arthroplasty using megaprosthesis. Diffuse osteomyelitis was confirmed in both cases; in one case, the histology was compatible with osteomyelitis, and the other case had a positive culture identified in a bone sample. At a minimum of a four-year follow-up, the patients did not reveal any clinical, radiological or laboratory signs of infection. In conclusion, one-stage exchange arthroplasty and megaprosthesis is an option for the treatment of chronic hip periprosthetic joint infection associated with radiological-diffuse proximal femoral osteomyelitis.

Survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement in non-neoplastic primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several studies have evaluated the survivorship and clinical outcomes of proximal femoral replacement (PFR) in complex primary and revision total hip arthroplasty with severe proximal femoral bone loss; however, there remains no consensus on the overall performance of this implant. We therefore performed a systematic review of the literature in order to examine survivorship and complication rates of PFR usage.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted for English articles using various combinations of keywords.

RESULTS

In all, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 578 PFR were implanted. The all-cause reoperation-free survivorship was 76.6%. The overall complication rate was 27.2%. Dislocation was the most common complication observed and the most frequent reason for reoperation with an incidence of 12.8 and 7.6%, respectively. Infection after PFR had an incidence of 7.6% and a reoperation rate of 6.4%. The reoperation rate for aseptic loosening of the implant was 5.9%. Overall, patients had improved outcomes as documented by postoperative hip scores.

CONCLUSION

PFR usage have a relatively high complication rate, however, it remains an efficacious treatment option in elderly patients with osteoporotic bone affected by severe proximal femoral bone loss. Modular designs have shown reduced dislocations rate and higher survivorship free from dislocation. However, PFR should only be used as salvage procedure when no other reconstruction options are available.

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.

Management of peri-prosthetic joint infection and severe bone loss after total hip arthroplasty using a long-stemmed cemented custom-made articulating spacer (CUMARS)

Background

There is little evidence on techniques for management of peri-prosthetic infection (PJI) in the context of severe proximal femoral bone loss. Custom-made articulating spacers (CUMARS) utilising cemented femoral stems as spacers was described providing better bone support and longer survival compared to conventional articulating spacers. We retrospectively report our experience managing PJI by adaptation of this technique using long cemented femoral stems where bone loss precludes use of standard stems.

Methods

Patients undergoing 1st stage revision for infected primary and revision THA using a cemented long stem (> 205 mm) and standard all-polyethylene acetabulum between 2011 and 2018 were identified. After excluding other causes of revision (fractures or aseptic loosening), Twenty-one patients remained out of total 721 revisions. Medical records were assessed for demographics, initial microbiological and operative treatment, complications, eradication of infection and subsequent operations. 2nd stage revision was undertaken in the presence of pain or subsidence.

Results

Twenty-one patients underwent 1st stage revision with a cemented long femoral stem. Mean follow up was 3.9 years (range 1.7–7.2). Infection was eradicated in 15 (71.4%) patients. Two patients (9.5%) required repeat 1st stage and subsequently cleared their infection. Three patients (14.3%) had chronic infection and are on long term suppressive antibiotics. One patient (4.8%) was lost to follow up before 2 years. Complications occurred in seven patients (33%) during or after 1st stage revision. Where infection was cleared, 2nd stage revision was undertaken in 12 patients (76.5%) at average of 9 months post 1st stage. Five (23.8%) CUMARS constructs remained in-situ at an average of 3.8 years post-op (range 2.6–5.1).

Conclusions

Our technique can be used in the most taxing of reconstructive scenarios allowing mobility, local antibiotic delivery, maintenance of leg length and preserves bone and soft tissue, factors not afforded by alternative spacer options.

Modular megaprostheses in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur

Background

Periprosthetic fractures (PPF) of the femur remain challenging, especially in patients with previous multiple revisions. Modular megaprostheses (mMPs) are rarely used in this indication; however, in some cases mMPs seem to be the last chance for limb salvage. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome of PPFs of the femur treated by modular mMPs at our institution.

Patients and methods

In this study 33 patients (27 female; mean age 79 years) with a PPF after total hip or total knee arthroplasty (no tumor indications) were treated using modular proximal (mPFR; n = 12), distal (mDFR; n = 14) or total (mTFR; n = 7) femur replacement. A retrospective evaluation regarding mortality and revision rates was performed. Failures with need for revision were classified.

Results

At a mean follow up of 60 months (range 0–178 months), the total mortality rate as well as total revision rate were both found to be 39%. At 1 year follow-up the mortality rate was highest within the mDFR group, and less revisions were necessary in the mPFR group, however both findings were not significantly. Those patients, who had revision surgery before PPF, were found to have higher revision rate after implantation of mMP. In the mPFR group, dislocation was the most frequent failure, within the mDFR and the mTFR group infection. In one case amputation of the lower limb was necessary.

Conclusion

mMPs represent a valuable option in PPFs of the femur. Infection and dislocation remain the most frequent complications. Prospective clinical studies are required to further define the outcome of mMPs in PPFs of the femur.

Vancouver B periprosthetic fractures involving the Exeter cemented stem

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine whether fixation, as opposed to revision arthroplasty, can be safely used to treat reducible Vancouver B type fractures in association with a cemented collarless polished tapered femoral stem (the Exeter).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study assessed 152 operatively managed consecutive unilateral Vancouver B fractures involving Exeter stems; 130 were managed with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and 22 with revision arthroplasty. Mean follow-up was 6.5 years (SD 2.6; 3.2 to 12.1). The primary outcome measure was revision of at least one component. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for revision following ORIF. Secondary outcomes included any reoperation, complications, blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, and mortality.

RESULTS

Fractures (B1 n = 74 (49%); B2 n = 50 (33%); and B3 n = 28 (18%)) occurred at median of 4.2 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1.2 to 9.2) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) (n = 138) or hemiarthroplasty (n = 14). Rates of revision and reoperation were significantly higher following revision arthroplasty compared to ORIF for B2 (p = 0.001) and B3 fractures (p = 0.050). Five-year survival was significantly better following ORIF: 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.4% to 97.4%) versus 63% (95% CI 41.7% to 83.3%), p < 0.001. ORIF was associated with reduced blood transfusion requirement and reoperations, but there were no differences in medical complications, hospital stay, or mortality between surgical groups. No independent predictors of revision following ORIF were identified: where the bone-cement interface was intact, fixation of B2 or B3 fractures was not associated with an increased risk of revision.

CONCLUSION

When the bone-cement interface was intact and the fracture was anatomically reducible, all Vancouver B fractures around Exeter stems could be managed with fixation as opposed to revision arthroplasty. Fixation was associated with reduced need for blood transfusion and lower risk of revision surgery compared with revision arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):309-320.

Management of Modular Mega-Implant Infection of the Lower Extremity

INTRODUCTION

Revision arthroplasty involving mega-implants is associated with a high complication rate. In particular, infection is a serious complication of revision arthroplasty of hip and knee joints and has been reported to have an average rate of 18%, and for mega-implants, the range is from 3 to 36%. This study was designed to analyze the strategy of treatment of infection of mega-endoprostheses of the lower extremities in our patient cohort, particularly the management of chronic infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study that focused on the results of the treatment of periprosthetic infections of mega-implants of the lower extremities. We identified 26 cases with periprosthetic infections out of 212 patients with 220 modular mega-endoprostheses of the lower extremities who were treated in our department between September 2013 and September 2019. As a reinfection or recurrence, we defined clinical and microbiological recurrences of local periprosthetic joint infections after an antibiotic-free period.

RESULTS

In this study, 200 cases out of 220 were investigated. The average follow-up period was approximately 18 months (6 months to 6 years). Endoprosthesis infections after implantation of mega-implants occurred in 26 cases (13%). This group comprised 2 early infections (within the first 4 weeks) and 24 chronic infections (between 10 weeks and 6 years after implantation). Nineteen cases out of the identified 26 cases with infection (73.1%) belong to the group of patients who were operated on due to major bone loss following explantation of endoprosthetic components due to previous periprosthetic joint infection. The remaining seven cases with infection comprised four cases following management of periprosthetic fracture, two cases following treatment of aseptic loosening, and one case following tumor resection. All infections were treated surgically. In all cases, the duration of continuous antibiotic treatment did not exceed 6 weeks. Both cases with early infection were treated by exchanging polyethylene inlays and performing debridement with lavage (two cases). In two (7.7%) cases with chronic infection, one-stage surgery was performed. In all remaining cases with chronic infection (22 cases; 84.6%), explantation of all components and temporary implantation of cement spacers were carried out prior to reimplantation.

CONCLUSION

There is still no gold standard therapeutic regimen for the management of periprosthetic infection of mega-implants, though radical surgical debridement and lavage accompanied by systemic antibiotic therapy are the most important therapeutic tools in all cases of periprosthetic infections, regardless of the time of onset. Further studies are needed to standardize management strategies of such infections. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for compromises to be made based on the particular condition of the individual.

Reconstruction of proximal femoral bone loss using circumferential structural allograft during total hip arthroplasty in a young patient

Management of proximal femoral bone loss during hip arthroplasty in young patients is a complex problem due to the need to provide a joint with an increased longevity. While proximal femoral replacement (PFR) would be an easier solution, they are associated with poorer hip scores and decreased prosthesis survival rates which are not ideal while managing young patients. We present a case of proximal femoral bone loss in a young female - following multiple failed osteosynthesis surgeries aimed at addressing a pathological sub-trochanteric fracture - managed successfully with a circumferential allograft during total hip arthroplasty. While there is many literature reporting the use of circumferential allografts during revision hip surgery, this is the first case to the best of our knowledge where we are reporting its successful use in a complex primary hip arthroplasty case. Our successful outcome shows that reconstruction of proximal femoral bone loss using allografts in young patients should be considered prior to use of PFR in them.

Revision surgery due to failed internal fixation of intertrochanteric femoral fracture: current state-of-the-art

Failed treatment of intertrochanteric (IT) femoral fractures leads to remarkable disability and pain, and revision surgery is frequently accompanied by higher complication and reoperation rates than primary internal fixation or primary hip arthroplasty. There is an urgent need to establish a profound strategy for the effective surgical management of these fragile patients. Salvage options are determined according to patient physiological age, functional level, life expectancy, nonunion anatomical site, fracture pattern, remaining bone quality, bone stock, and hip joint competency. In physiologically young patients, care should be taken to preserve the vitality of the femoral head with salvage internal fixation; however, for the elderly population, conversion arthroplasty can result in early weight bearing and ambulation and eliminates the risks of delayed fracture healing. Technical challenges include a difficult surgical exposure, removal of broken implants, deformity correction, critical bone defects, poor bone quality, high perioperative fracture risk, and prolonged immobilization. Overall, the salvage of failed internal fixations of IT fractures with properly selected implants and profound techniques can lead to the formulation of valuable surgical strategies and provide patients with satisfactory clinical outcomes.

Addressing prosthetic joint infections via gentamicin-eluting UHMWPE spacer

AIMS

We propose a state-of-the-art temporary spacer, consisting of a cobalt-chrome (CoCr) femoral component and a gentamicin-eluting ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) tibial insert, which can provide therapeutic delivery of gentamicin, while retaining excellent mechanical properties. The proposed implant is designed to replace conventional spacers made from bone cement.

METHODS

Gentamicin-loaded UHMWPE was prepared using phase-separated compression moulding, and its drug elution kinetics, antibacterial, mechanical, and wear properties were compared with those of conventional gentamicin-loaded bone cement.

RESULTS

Gentamicin-loaded UHMWPE tibial components not only eradicated planktonic Staphylococcus aureus, but also prevented colonization of both femoral and tibial components. The proposed spacer possesses far superior mechanical and wear properties when compared with conventional bone cement spacers.

CONCLUSION

The proposed gentamicin-eluting UHMWPE spacer can provide antibacterial efficacy comparable with currently used bone cement spacers, while overcoming their drawbacks. The novel spacer proposed here has the potential to drastically reduce complications associated with currently used bone cement spacers and substantially improve patients' quality of life during the treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):151-157.

Non-neoplastic indications and outcomes of the proximal and distal femur megaprosthesis: a critical review

Purpose

Megaprosthesis or endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal and distal femur is a well-established modality for treatment of tumors. The indications for megaprosthesis have been expanded to the treatment of some non-neoplastic conditions of the knee and hip, with the severe bone loss associated with failed arthroplasty, communited fractures in the elderly with poor bone quality, and resistant non-union. Th aim of this study is to find out whether megaprosthesis of the knee and hip is successful in the treatment of non-neoplastic condtions. The study comprises a review of the indications, complications, and outcomes of megaprosthesis of the proximal and distal femur in non-neoplastic conditions of the knee and hip joints.

Methods

We extensively reviewed the literature on non-neoplastic indications for megaprosthesis of the proximal and distal femur after performing a detailed search of the Pubmed database using the medical subject heading (MeSH) terms ‘proximal femur replacement’ or ‘distal femur replacement’ and ‘hip or knee megaprosthesis.’ The data obtained after the structured search were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The frequency distribution of the demographic data, indications, complications, and outcome was calculated.

Result

We included ten studies (seven proximal femur replacement and three distal femur replacement) of 245 proximal femur and 54 distal femur mega prostheses for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions. Bone loss in failed arthroplasty, either due to periprosthetic fracture or deep infection, was the most common indication for megaprosthesis. Dislocation was the most common complication after proximal femur megaprosthesis, and infection was the leading cause of complications after distal femur megaprosthesis.

Conclusion

Megaprosthesis for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions around the distal and proximal femur is a viable option for limb salvage, with an acceptable long-term outcome. Although the complications and survival rates of megaprosthesis in non-neoplastic conditions are inferior to a primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee but are comparable or better than the mega prosthetic replacement in the neoplastic conditions. Proximal femoral megaprosthesis has higher dislocation rates and requirement for revision compared to distal femoral megaprosthesis. However, the proximal femoral megaprosthesis has lower rates of infection, periprosthetic fractures, and soft tissue complications, as compared to distal femoral megaprosthetic replacement. Both associated with aseptic loosening but not statistically significant.

Cemented Proximal Femoral Replacement for the Management of Non-Neoplastic Conditions: A Versatile Implant but Not Without Its Risks

BACKGROUND

The demand for revision arthroplasty continues to grow. Proximal femoral bone loss poses a significant challenge to surgeons and proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) are one option to address this problem. The aim of our study is to assess the reoperation, complication, and mortality rates following PFR for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted of a consecutive group of patients treated with a PFR for non-neoplastic conditions between 2010 and 2018. Mortality was confirmed using the Irish national death events publication service.

RESULTS

Over the 8-year study period, 79 PFRs in 78 patients were performed. Mean age of patients was 78.3 years (standard deviation 11.9), of which 37.2% were male. Periprosthetic fracture was the most common indication for PFR (63.3%). The 30-day mortality rate was 7.6% (6 patients), of which bone cement implantation syndrome occurred in 4 patients. One-year mortality was 12.7%. Complications occurred in 22.8%.

CONCLUSION

A cemented PFR is a versatile prosthesis in the armamentarium of a revision arthroplasty surgeon that allows immediate full weight-bearing. However, it may appropriately be considered a last resort procedure that poses specific risks that must be explained to patients and family. We present the short-term outcomes on one of the largest series of PFR to date.

Acetabular Erosion After Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty in Proximal Femoral Replacement for Malignant Bone Tumors

BACKGROUND

Hemiarthroplasty megaprosthetic proximal femur reconstruction after tumor resection is a widespread procedure in orthopedic oncology. One potential complication is acetabular wear requiring secondary acetabular revision. The study's purpose is to investigate prevalence of acetabular erosion, secondary revisions, and potential risk factors.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 112 patients who underwent proximal femur replacement after resection of a malignant bone tumor and had radiological follow-up longer than 12 months. Patient demographic, surgical, and oncologic factors were recorded, acetabular wear was measured using the classification proposed by Baker, and prosthetic failure was classified using the International Society on Limb Salvage classification. Functional assessment was performed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score and Harris Hip Score.

RESULTS

Prevalence of acetabular wear was 28.6%. Secondary conversion to total hip arthroplasty was required in 5 patients (4.6%), all treated for primary bone tumors. No patient treated for metastatic tumor had higher grade acetabular wear or required revision. Significant risk factors for the development of acetabular wear were age under 40 (P = .035) and longer follow-up (63 vs 43 months, P = .004). Other patient, surgical, or adjuvant treatment-related factors were not associated with acetabular revision or acetabular wear. The dislocation rate in the patient cohort was 0.9%.

CONCLUSION

Bipolar hemiarthroplasty proximal femoral replacement represents a durable reconstruction after tumor resection. Hip instability is rare. Acetabular erosion is rare and can be successfully treated with conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Young patients with long-term survival over 10 years are at risk. In reconstruction for metastases, instability and acetabular wear are rare.

Proximal femoral replacement in non-oncologic patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) have been recently utilized in complex revision arthroplasties where proximal femoral bone is compromised. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes, complications, and survivorship of PFRs as a salvage treatment for severe bone loss after non-oncologic revision total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent femoral revision surgery using a single design PFR between 2004 and 2013 at our institution. Forty patients (41 hips) were included with a mean age of 64 years (29-90). According to Paprosky classification, 15 femurs had type IIIB defect, and 26 had type IV defect. Patients were followed for a mean of five years (2-10). The average length of reconstruction was 150 mm (81-261). A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the survival of the PFR.

RESULTS

A total of nine patients (9 PFRs, 22%) were re-operated upon. Three re-operations were for infection, two for dislocation, two for aseptic loosening, and two for periprosthetic fracture. The survivorship at five years was 95.1% for revision of the femoral stem for aseptic loosening. We did not find length of the segmental reconstruction or the indication for revision, to be a risk factor for implant failure or re-revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Proximal femoral replacements have shown an acceptable survivorship in non-oncologic revision hip arthroplasties for severe proximal femoral bone loss. The frequent use of constrained liners may decrease the risk of dislocation due to the loss of the abductor mechanism encountered in these complex reconstructions.

The use of a non-invasive extendable prosthesis at the time of revision arthroplasty

Aims

The use of a noninvasive growing endoprosthesis in the management of primary bone tumours in children is well established. However, the efficacy of such a prosthesis in those requiring a revision procedure has yet to be established. The aim of this series was to present our results using extendable prostheses for the revision of previous endoprostheses.

Patients and Methods

All patients who had a noninvasive growing endoprosthesis inserted at the time of a revision procedure were identified from our database. A total of 21 patients (seven female patients, 14 male) with a mean age of 20.4 years (10 to 41) at the time of revision were included. The indications for revision were mechanical failure, trauma or infection with a residual leg-length discrepancy. The mean follow-up was 70 months (17 to 128). The mean shortening prior to revision was 44 mm (10 to 100). Lengthening was performed in all but one patient with a mean lengthening of 51 mm (5 to 140).

Results

The mean residual leg length discrepancy at final follow-up of 15 mm (1 to 35). Two patients developed a deep periprosthetic infection, of whom one required amputation to eradicate the infection; the other required two-stage revision. Implant survival according to Henderson criteria was 86% at two years and 72% at five years. When considering revision for any cause (including revision of the growing prosthesis to a non-growing prosthesis), revision-free implant survival was 75% at two years, but reduced to 55% at five years.

Conclusion

Our experience indicates that revision surgery using a noninvasive growing endoprosthesis is a successful option for improving leg length discrepancy and should be considered in patients with significant leg-length discrepancy requiring a revision procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:370-7.

The stability of the hip after the use of a proximal femoral endoprosthesis for oncological indications: analysis of variables relating to the patient and the surgical technique

AIMS

Instability of the hip is the most common mode of failure after reconstruction with a proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) using an endoprosthesis after excision of a tumour. Small studies report improved stability with capsular repair of the hip and other techniques, but these have not been investigated in a large series of patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate variables associated with the patient and the operation that affect post-operative stability. We hypothesised an association between capsular repair and stability.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study, we identified 527 adult patients who were treated with a PFA for tumours. Our data included demographics, the pathological diagnosis, the amount of resection of the abductor muscles, the techniques of reconstruction and the characteristics of the implant. We used regression analysis to compare patients with and without post-operative instability.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients out of 527 (4%) had instability which presented at a mean of 35 days (3 to 131) post-operatively. Capsular repair was not associated with a reduced rate of instability. Bivariate analysis showed that a posterolateral surgical approach (odds ratio (OR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.86) and the type of implant (p = 0.046) had a significant association with reduced instability; age > 60 years predicted instability (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.00 to 9.98). Multivariate analysis showed age > 60 years (OR 5.09, 95% CI 1.23 to 21.07), female gender (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.89), a malignant primary bone tumour (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.95), and benign condition (OR 5.56, 95% CI 1.35 to 22.90), but not metastatic disease or soft-tissue tumours, predicted instability, while a posterolateral approach (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.53) was protective against instability. No instability occurred when a synthetic graft was used in 70 patients.

CONCLUSION

Stability of the hip after PFA is influenced by variables associated with the patient, the pathology, the surgical technique and the implant. We did not find an association between capsular repair and improved stability. Extension of the tumour often dictates surgical technique; however, our results indicate that PFA using a posterolateral approach with a hemiarthroplasty and synthetic augment for soft-tissue repair confers the lowest risk of instability. Patients who are elderly, female, or with a primary benign or malignant bone tumour should be counselled about an increased risk of instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:531-7.