RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To investigate the risk of postoperative function and complications associated with reconstruction methods in patients with short residual proximal femurs (< 12 cm) after resection of distal femoral bone tumors, we performed a systematic review of studies reporting postoperative function and complications in these patients. METHODS: Of the 236 studies identified by systematic searches using the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, eight were included (none were randomized controlled trials). In these studies, 106 (68.4%), 12 (7.7%), and 37 (23.9%) patients underwent reconstruction with custom-made megaprostheses with extracortical plates or cross-pins, allograft prosthetic composite (APC), and Compress® compliant pre-stress (CPS) implants, respectively. RESULTS: Aseptic loosening occurred slightly more frequently in the APC group than in the other reconstruction methods (APC group, 21%; custom-made megaprosthesis group, 0-17%; CPS implant group, 14%). No differences were noted in the frequencies of implant breakage, fractures, or infections between the three reconstruction methods. Mechanical survival, where endpoint was set as implant removal for any reason, was 80% at seven years in the APC group, 70-77% at 10 years in the custom-made megaprosthesis group, and 68% at nine years in the CPS implant group. Therefore, there appeared to be no difference among the three reconstruction methods with respect to mechanical survival. CONCLUSIONS: During megaprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur with a short residual proximal femur after bone tumor resection, similar results were obtained using custom-made megaprostheses, APCs, and CPS implants.

Asunto(s)

Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla , Neoplasias Óseas , Neoplasias Femorales , Humanos , Diseño de Prótesis , Falla de Prótesis , Resultado del Tratamiento , Fémur/patología , Neoplasias Óseas/patología , Neoplasias Femorales/cirugía , Neoplasias Femorales/patología , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy between biologic fixation and traditional cement stems for the fixation of distal femoral prostheses for reconstruction following tumor resection. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed of patients who received a first distal femoral tumor prosthesis, with a rotating hinge, in the Department of Orthopaedic Oncology of Beijing Jishuitan Hospital between October 2011 and January 2016. Two hundred and sixty eligible cases were enrolled, with a cemented fixation used in 199 of these cases and a biologic fixation in 61 cases. Survival rates and survival time of prostheses were analyzed, with prosthetic failure considered as the endpoint event for survival time of the prosthesis. Kaplan-Meier survival curve and the log-rank test were used to compare survival rates between the two types of fixation methods, and factors that may affect the survival rate of prosthesis were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 260 cases forming our study group, 138 were males and 122 females, with 102 males and 97 females in the cemented fixation group (mean age, 25.8 years; range, 8-72 years) and 36 males and 25 females in the biologic fixation group (mean age, 25.5 years; range, 12-59 years). Osteosarcoma was the most common type of tumor (188 cases, 72.3%), of which 145 cases (72.9%) were in the cemented and 45 cases (72.1%) in the biologic fixation group. Among the 260 cases enrolled into the study group, 13 patients were lost to follow-up. The average duration of follow-up for the remaining 247 cases was 28.8 months (median, 28.8 months; range, 4-61 months). The 3-year overall survival rate of prostheses was 87.2% for the biologic fixation group and 80.4% in the cemented fixation group (P = 0.389). The 3-year mechanical survival rate (excluding cases of infection and oncologic progression) was 100% for the biologic fixation and 97.6% for the cemented fixation group (P = 0.468). Complications were identified in 21 cases: 3 cases (5%) in the biologic and 18 cases (9.6%) in the cemented fixation group (P = 0.264). Two revisions were required in the cemented fixation group, but no revision was required in the biologic fixation group. A total of 10 patients required amputation after prosthesis implantation. Of these, 7 cases (4 cement and 3 biologic) were due to tumor recurrence; 3 cases were due to infection, with all cases occurring in the cement fixation group. CONCLUSION: The current study provides a baseline reference for future mid-term to long-term follow-up, laying the foundation for further studies and comparison of the incidence of aseptic loosening of both types of prosthesis.

Asunto(s)

Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/instrumentación , Cementos para Huesos , Neoplasias Femorales/cirugía , Prótesis de la Rodilla , Osteosarcoma/cirugía , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/métodos , Factores Biológicos , Niño , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Falla de Prótesis , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto Joven

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding the best method of reconstruction in pediatric population following the wide resection of malignant bone tumors. More exploration of the complications of osteoarticular reconstruction leads to less existing controversy of this type of reconstruction, which is the main point of this article. METHODS: Long-term outcomes and complications of osteoarticular allograft reconstruction of primary distal femoral bone sarcomas in 22 children with mean age of 10.7 years old were reviewed in this study. Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system was used for functional evaluation of the allografts. RESULTS: With an average follow-up time of 81 months, the outcomes of 16 patients with allografts at the final follow up were evaluated. As expected, Limb length discrepancy (LLD) was observed in all patients (mean LLD= 2.73cm), which was significantly correlated to allograft survival time (P<0.001). Degenerative joint disease (DJD) was also seen in all patients and its grade was also significantly correlated to allograft survival time (P<0.001). The mean MSTS-score was 74% at the latest follow-up, ranging from 60% to 90%. Five and 10 year survival rate of allografts were found to be 93.3% and 62.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Osteoarticular allograft reconstruction could result in several complications including DJD. Despite its considerable biologic advantage over endoprosthesis, osteoarticular allograft reconstruction is a long-lasting but still a temporary solution before performing megaprosthesis. This allows patients to preserve their remaining physis for limb growth and become old enough for an adult megaprosthesis.