Gusho CA, Clayton B, Mehta N, Hmeidan W, Colman MW, Gitelis S, Blank AT. Internal fixation versus endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur for metastatic bone disease: Single institutional outcomes.
J Orthop 2021;
28:86-90. [PMID:
34992334 DOI:
10.1016/j.jor.2021.11.003]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/05/2021] [Revised: 09/12/2021] [Accepted: 11/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE
This study compared internal fixation (IF) to proximal femur replacement (PFR) for proximal femoral metastasis.
METHODS
Between 2005 and 2019, 113 lesions underwent IF (n = 94) or PFR (n = 19). Revision risk was calculated with mortality as a competing event.
RESULTS
The 5-year revision risk after IF was 17.6% (95% CI, 9.8%-27.3%) compared to 7.6% (95% CI, 0.3%-28.9%) after PFR (p = 0.59). PFR had longer operative times (p < 0.001), hospital stay (p = 0.039), and higher blood loss (p < 0.001) than IF, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
IF may be considered for patients with poor health and a limited prognosis given the less-invasive procedure and shorter hospital stay.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
III. Retrospective Study.
Collapse