Search

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., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2023 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Limb lengthening with magnetically driven intramedullary lengthening nails is a fast-developing field and represents an alternative to external fixators. Although previous studies have assessed the application of magnetically driven intramedullary lengthening nails, these studies have been heterogenous regarding the nailing approach, the bone treated, and the implant type; they also have analyzed relatively small patient groups at short follow-up durations., Questions/purposes: (1) Is femoral lengthening with magnetically driven antegrade intramedullary lengthening nails accurate and precise? (2) What are the most common complications of treatment? (3) What factors are associated with unplanned additional surgery?, Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the longitudinally maintained database of our orthopaedic teaching hospital to identify all patients who underwent surgery for leg length discrepancy (LLD) between October 2014 and April 2019. In total, we surgically treated 323 patients for LLD of 2 cm or more. Of those 55% (177 of 323) were treated with distraction osteogenesis with magnetically driven intramedullary lengthening nails, 18% (59 of 323) with external fixation, and 27% (87 of 323) with epiphysiodesis around the knee. Based on that, 29% (93 of 323) of patients underwent unilateral femoral distraction osteogenesis with magnetically driven antegrade femoral lengthening nails and were eligible for analysis. No patient was excluded, and 3% (3 of 93) were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 2 years, leaving 97% (90 of 93) for analysis. Patients with a distal femoral deformity were treated via a retrograde femoral approach (10% [33 of 323]) or with external fixators (3% [10 of 323]) and were not included in this study. Distraction osteogenesis with magnetically driven intramedullary lengthening nails was not considered for patients with deep tissue infection, those with bone dimensions considered to be too small in relation to the available implants, and for patients younger than 8 years. This study included 90 patients (44 females, 43 left femora) treated for a median (interquartile range) preoperative LLD of 39 mm (32 to 52) at a median age of 15 years (14 to 17). The same limb lengthening system was applied in all patients. The median (IQR) follow-up was 35 months (24 to 78). Data were acquired through a chart review performed by someone not involved in the surgical care of the included patients. Data acquisition was supervised and curated by two of the involved surgeons. Accuracy was calculated as 100 - [(achieved distraction in mm - planned distraction in mm) / (planned distraction in mm) x 100] and precision as 100 - (relative standard deviation of accuracy). Treatment-associated complications were summarized descriptively and characterized as complications resulting in unplanned additional surgery or those not resulting in unplanned surgery. To analyze the risk of unplanned additional surgery by entity, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) comparing the incidence of unplanned additional surgery in the different entity cohorts with the idiopathic LLD cohort as a reference. By calculating ORs, we analyzed the risk for unplanned additional surgery depending on sex, age, surgery time, and previous lengthening. Due to the lack of long-term evidence about motorized lengthening nails remaining in situ and concerns about potential implant-related adverse effects, removal was routinely scheduled 1 year after consolidation. For implant removal, 92% (83 of 90) of patients underwent planned additional surgery, which was not recorded as an adverse event of the treatment. Ninety-seven percent (87 of 90) of patients completed lengthening with the implant remaining in situ until the end of distraction. The median (IQR) distraction length was 37 mm (30 to 45) with a median distraction index of 0.9 mm/day (0.7 to 1.0) and median consolidation index of 31 days/cm (25 to 42)., Results: The calculated accuracy and precision were 94% and 90%, respectively. In total, 76% (68 of 90) of our patients experienced complications, which resulted in 20% (18 of 90) of patients undergoing unplanned additional surgery. The most common complication overall was adjustment of the distraction rate in 27% (24 of 90) of patients (faster: 16% [14 of 90]; slower: 11% [10 of 90]) and temporary restriction of knee motion, which occurred in 20% (18 of 90) of our patients and resolved in all patients who experienced it. The most serious complications were bacterial osteomyelitis and knee subluxation, which occurred in 3% (3 of 90) and 1% (1 of 90) of our patients, respectively. With the numbers available, we found only one factor associated with an increased likelihood of unplanned additional surgery: Patients with postinfectious LLD had higher odds of unplanned additional surgery than patients with idiopathic LLD (7% [1 of 15] versus 50% [3 of 6], OR 14.0 [95% CI 1.06 to 185.49]; p = 0.02). However, we caution readers this finding is fragile, and the confidence interval suggests that the effect size estimate is likely to be imprecise., Conclusion: Femoral distraction osteogenesis with magnetically driven antegrade intramedullary lengthening nails appears to be an accurate and reliable treatment for femoral lengthening. However, depending on the etiology, a high risk of unplanned additional surgery should be anticipated, and a high proportion of patients will experience temporary joint stiffness. We recommend close orthopaedic follow-up and physiotherapy during treatment. This treatment of LLD can be considered alongside other nails, external fixators, and epiphysiodesis. Multicenter studies comparing this with other approaches are needed., Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Total humeral replacement is an option to reconstruct massive bone defects after resection of locally advanced bone tumors of the humerus. However, implant survivorship, potential risk factors for implant revision surgery, and functional results of total humeral replacement are poorly elucidated because of the rarity of the procedure., Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) What is the revision-free implant and overall limb survivorship after total humerus replacement? (2) What factors are associated with implant revision surgery? (3) What is the functional outcome of the procedure as determined by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score?, Methods: Between August 1999 and December 2018, 666 patients underwent megaprosthetic reconstruction after resection of a primary malignant or locally aggressive/rarely metastasizing tumor of the long bones at our department. In all, 23% (154) of these patients had a primary tumor located in the humerus. During the study, we performed total humeral replacement in all patients with a locally advanced sarcoma, in patients with pathological fractures, in patients with skip metastases, or in patients with previous intralesional contaminating surgery, who would have no sufficient bone stock for a stable implant fixation for a single joint megaprosthetic replacement of the proximal or distal humerus. We performed no biological reconstructions or reconstructions with allograft-prosthetic composites. As a result, 5% (33 of 666) of patients underwent total humerus replacement. Six percent (2 of 33) of patients were excluded because they received a custom-made, three-dimensionally (3-D) printed hemiprosthesis, leaving 5% (31) of the initial 666 patients for inclusion in our retrospective analysis. Of these, 6% (2 of 31) had surgery more than 5 years ago, but they had not been seen in the last 5 years. Median (interquartile range) age at the time of surgery was 15 years (14 to 25 years), and indications for total humeral replacement were primary malignant bone tumors (n = 30) and a recurring, rarely metastasizing bone tumor (n = 1). All megaprosthetic reconstructions were performed with a single modular system. The implanted prostheses were silver-coated beginning in 2006, and beginning in 2010, a reverse proximal humerus component was used when appropriate. We analyzed endoprosthetic complications descriptively and assessed the functional outcome of all surviving patients who did not undergo secondary amputation using the 1993 MSTS score and the ASES score. The median (IQR) follow-up in all survivors was 75 months (50 to 122 months), with a minimum follow-up period of 25 months. We evaluated the following factors for possible association with implant revision surgery: age, BMI, reconstruction length, duration of surgery, extraarticular resection, pathological fracture, previous intralesional surgery, (neo-)adjuvant radio- and chemotherapy, and metastatic disease., Results: The revision-free implant survivorship at 1 year was 77% (95% confidence interval 58% to 89%) and 74% (95% CI 55% to 86%) at 5 years. The overall limb survivorship was 93% (95% CI 75% to 98%) after 1 and after 5 years. We found revision-free survivorship to be lower in patients with extraarticular shoulder resection compared with intraarticular resections (50% [95% CI 21% to 74%] versus 89% [95% CI 64% to 97%]) after 5 years (subhazard ratios for extraarticular resections 4.4 [95% CI 1.2 to 16.5]; p = 0.03). With the number of patients available for our analysis, we could not detect a difference in revision-free survivorship at 5 years between patients who underwent postoperative radiotherapy (40% [95% CI 5% to 75%]) and patients who did not (81% [95% CI 60% to 92%]; p = 0.09). The median (IQR) MSTS score in 9 of 13 surviving patients after a median follow-up of 75 months (51 to 148 months) was 87% (67% to 92%), and the median ASES score was 83 (63 to 89) of 100 points, with higher scores representing better function., Conclusion: Total humeral replacement after resection of locally advanced bone tumors appears to be associated with a good functional outcome in patients who do not die of their tumors, which in our study was approximately one- third of those who were treated with a resection and total humerus prosthesis. However, the probability of early prosthetic revision surgery is high, especially in patients undergoing extraarticular resections, who should be counseled accordingly. Still, our results suggest that if the prosthesis survives the first year, further risk for revision appears to be low. Future studies should reexamine the effect of postoperative radiotherapy on implant survival in a larger cohort and evaluate whether the use of soft tissue coverage with plastic reconstructive surgery might decrease the risk of early revisions, especially in patients undergoing extraarticular resections., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Four patients were treated with limb lengthening to correct a leg-length discrepancy that developed after a hip transposition after pelvic resection for sacroma of the pelvis. Three patients had Ewing's sacroma and one patient had osteosarcoma. All patients received chemotherapy; radiotherapy also was administered to the three patients with Ewing's sacroma. Femur lengthening was started at an average of 5.7 years (range, 4.4-6.8 years) after tumor surgery. At the start of elongation, the average age of the patients was 17.3 years (range, 10.3-20.8 years). The average leg-length discrepancy was 10.3 cm (range, 6-12 cm). The average of achieved lengthening was 6.4 cm (range 6-7.5 cm). The average healing index was 32 days (range, 27-40 days) per 1-cm elongation. According to the classification of Paley, two problems and two minor complications were treated by additional interventions. At the final followup, the average functional score was 22 (73%) according to the system of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. Leg-length discrepancy after hip transposition can be corrected with distraction osteogenesis. All patients who wore a stiff ankle-foot orthosis before lengthening wore an ordinary shoe lift after lengthening. The problems of the lengthening procedure are similar to the general complication rate of bone lengthening. Because the 5-year survival after resection of a pelvic sarcoma is only 20% to 30%, leg lengthening after hip transposition should be offered only to long-term survivors with at least 5 years event-free survival.