1
|
You Q, Lu M, Min L, Zhang Y, Luo Y, Zhou Y, Tu C. Hip-preserving reconstruction using a customized cemented femoral endoprosthesis with a curved stem in patients with short proximal femur segments: Mid-term follow-up outcomes. Front Surg 2022; 9:991168. [DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.991168] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2022] [Accepted: 09/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundShort metaphyseal segments that remain following extensive distal femoral tumor resection can be challenging to manage, as the residual short segments may not be sufficient to accept an intramedullary cemented stem of standard length. The present study was developed to detail preliminary findings and experiences associated with an intra-neck curved stem (INCS) reconstructive approach, with a particular focus on mechanical stability.MethodFrom March 2013 to August 2016, 11 total patients underwent reconstructive procedures using a customized cemented femoral endoprosthesis (CCFE) with an INCS. Measurements of femoral neck-shaft angle values were made before and after this procedure. Radiological outcomes associated with this treatment strategy over an average 63-month follow-up period were additionally assessed. Functionality was assessed based upon Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores, while a visual analog scale (VAS) was used to rate pre- and postoperative pain, and any complications were noted.ResultsRelative to the preoperative design, no significant differences in femoral neck–shaft angle were observed after this reconstructive procedure (p = 0.410). Postoperatively, the tip of the stem was primarily positioned within the middle third of the femoral head in both lateral and posterior-anterior radiographic, supporting the accuracy of INCS positioning. The average MSTS score for these patients was 25 (range: 21–28), and VAS scores were significantly reduced after surgery (p < 0.0001). One patient exhibited local disease recurrence and ultimately succumbed to lung metastases, while two patients exhibited aseptic loosening. None of the treated patients exhibited complications such as infections, periprosthetic fractures, or prosthetic fractures as of most recent follow-up.ConclusionCCFE with an INCS represents a viable approach to massive femoral diaphyseal defect with short proximal femur repair, as patients can achieve good functional outcomes and early weight-bearing with proper individualized rehabilitative interventions, all while exhibiting low rates of procedure-related complications.
Collapse
|
2
|
You Q, Lu M, Min L, Luo Y, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Zheng C, Zhou Y, Tu C. A comparison of cemented and cementless intra-neck curved stem use during hip-preserving reconstruction following massive femoral malignant tumor removal. Front Oncol 2022; 12:933057. [PMID: 36132148 PMCID: PMC9483172 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.933057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2022] [Accepted: 07/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundPatients who undergo massive femoral malignant tumor (MFMT) resection often exhibit shortened femoral metaphyseal juxta-articular segments. The use of a customized femoral endoprosthesis (CFE) with an intra-neck curved stem (INCS) has emerged as a viable reconstructive surgical strategy for these individuals. Relative to a cemented INCS, it remains unclear as to whether cementless INCS use is associated with improvements in functionality or reconstructive longevity. As such, the present study was conducted to compare functional outcomes, endoprosthetic survival, and endoprosthesis-related complication rates in patients undergoing cemented and cementless INCS implantation.MethodsA total of 24 patients undergoing lower limb salvage and reconstructive surgical procedures utilizing cemented or cementless INCS endoprostheses were retrospectively included. Patient-functional outcomes, endoprosthetic survival, and complication rates were compared as a function of age; diagnosis; the length of femoral resection; residual proximal femur length; Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores; visual analog scale (VAS) scores; and the rates of implant breakage, periprosthetic infections, periprosthetic fractures, and aseptic loosening.ResultsThe mean follow-up was 56 months. Significant differences in the length of femoral resection (p<0.001) and residual proximal femur length were observed (p<0.001) between the cemented and cementless INCS groups. There were no differences in overall patient survival and aseptic loosening-associated endoprosthesis survival in the cemented and cementless groups. None of the included patients experienced periprosthetic fractures, infections, or implant breakage. Average respective MSTS and VAS scores did not differ between groups.ConclusionFor patients undergoing treatment for MFMTs, the use of a CFE with an INCS has emerged as a viable approach to hip-preserving reconstructive surgery. With appropriately designed individualized rehabilitative programs, good functional outcomes can be achieved for these endoprostheses, which are associated with low complication rates. Moreover, the selection between cemented or cementless INCS in the clinic should be made based on patient-specific factors, with cementless INCS implementation being preferable in younger patients with good-quality bone, the potential for long-term survival, and the osteotomy site near the lesser trochanter, whereas cemented INCS use should be favored for individuals who are older, have a shorter life expectancy, or have poor bone quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qi You
- Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Sichuan Model worker and Craftsman Talent Innovation Research Studio, Chengdu, China
| | - Minxun Lu
- Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Sichuan Model worker and Craftsman Talent Innovation Research Studio, Chengdu, China
| | - Li Min
- Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Sichuan Model worker and Craftsman Talent Innovation Research Studio, Chengdu, China
| | - Yi Luo
- Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Sichuan Model worker and Craftsman Talent Innovation Research Studio, Chengdu, China
| | - Yuqi Zhang
- Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Sichuan Model worker and Craftsman Talent Innovation Research Studio, Chengdu, China
| | - Yitian Wang
- Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Sichuan Model worker and Craftsman Talent Innovation Research Studio, Chengdu, China
| | - Chuanxi Zheng
- Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Sichuan Model worker and Craftsman Talent Innovation Research Studio, Chengdu, China
| | - Yong Zhou
- Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Sichuan Model worker and Craftsman Talent Innovation Research Studio, Chengdu, China
- *Correspondence: Chongqi Tu, ; Yong Zhou,
| | - Chongqi Tu
- Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Sichuan Model worker and Craftsman Talent Innovation Research Studio, Chengdu, China
- *Correspondence: Chongqi Tu, ; Yong Zhou,
| |
Collapse
|