Search

Background: While periprosthetic joint infection has always been a significant concern for orthopaedic surgeons, the rate of infection is five to ten times higher after tumor prosthesis implantation. With the growing use of mega-implants, the number of these infections has also increased. We aimed to investigate the results of our patients with a primary malignant musculoskeletal tumor, who underwent two-stage revision surgery for an infected mega-prosthesis. We also presented the emerging complicatons and required soft tissue reconstruction procedures., Methods: The study included 32 primary bone and soft tissue sarcoma patients who underwent a two-stage revision procedure for infection. After a rigorous bone and soft tissue debridement procedure at the first stage, antibiotic-loaded bone cement was wrapped around a cloverleaf type intramedullary nail and inserted into the forming gap. After a minimum of 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy, depending on patients' clinical signs and serum infection markers, the reimplantation stage was undertaken., Results: The mean oncologic follow-up period was 28 months (range 5-96 months). During this period, 11 patients died because of non-infection related causes, 12 patients were alive with their disease, whereas 9 patients were totally free of their oncologic condition. The infection was eradicated in all survivors except one patient, where a high-level transfemoral amputation became necessary., Conclusion: Periprosthetic infection after tumor proshesis implantation in cancer patients can be managed with same principles as conventional arthroplaty procedures, taking care that they are immunocompromised and vulnerable patients and their bone stock loss is significant which makes surgical options more challenging., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestThe authors declare no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article. The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article., (© Indian Orthopaedics Association 2023, Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.)

Background: Intramedullary nailing is the most preferred fixation method for diaphyseal radius and ulna fractures in the young age group. The aim of this study was to compare the dorsal and lateral entry points in the context of entry site-related complications, fracture union and functional results., Methods: This retrospective comparative study included pediatric patients who underwent surgery for isolated diaphyseal radius or both bone forearm fractures with intramedullary nailing using Kirschner wire between January 2013 and January 2019. K-wire was introduced from the distal radius through dorsal entry ( Group A) in 19 patients and lateral entry (Group B) in 18 patients. The mean follow-up was 37 months. Complications were noted and functional outcomes were evaluated according to the CHOP criteria., Results: All fractures were healed. The functional results were determined to be excellent for 30, fair for 4, and poor for 3 patients. The overall complication rate was 18.9%, including distal radius fracture, mild pain in the wrist, and minor loss in ROM. No statistically significant differences were determined between the groups in respect of functional results and complication rates., Conclusion: Good functional results and similar complication rates can be obtained with both dorsal and lateral entry approaches. Stainless steel K-wire is an inexpensive intramedullary fixation implant option, which provides strong stabilization. Distal radius fracture is a newly reported complication for forearm intramedullary nailing. Leaving the implant out of the skin seems safe with the benefit of avoiding a further surgical intervention to extract the implant., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestOn behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest., (© Indian Orthopaedics Association 2021.)