Search

Background: The most common modes of failure for megaprostheses are aseptic loosening followed by periprosthetic infection and stem fracture. Surgical technique for bone and implant exposure is controversial and may influence the success of revision and the need for additional future revisions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of cortical fenestration for megaprosthesis revision, particularly for stem fracture., Methods: From 1985-2014, 196 adult and pediatric patients underwent limb salvage with a distal femoral or proximal tibial megaprosthesis (109 cemented, 87 pressfit). A retrospective chart review was performed to assess the rate of revision based on cemented or pressfit fixation and the use of a cortical window to extract the failed stem. Results: 27% (29 of 109) of cemented and 18% (16 of 87) of pressfit implants were revised for stem failure. The reasons for revision in the cemented group were loosening (62%), infection (24%), and stem fracture (13%). In the pressfit group, the reasons were loosening (43%), infection (31%), stem fracture (6%), limb-length discrepancy (6%), malrotation (6%), and local recurrence (6%). A cortical window was used in 10 of 45 initial revisions (7 cemented, 3 pressfit) including all of the stem fractures, and in 2 of 15 subsequent re-revisions., Conclusion: Cortical fenestration is an effective, bone-preserving method of implant extraction, particularly for broken or cemented stems. It is associated with low rates of loosening and no increase in periprosthetic fractures.

Purpose: The proximal humerus is a common location for both primary and metastatic bone tumors. There are numerous reconstruction options after surgical resection. There is no consensus on the ideal method of reconstruction., Methods: A systematic review was performed with a focus on the surgical reconstructive options for lesions involving the proximal humerus., Results: A total of 50 articles and 1227 patients were included for analysis. Reoperation rates were autograft arthrodesis (11%), megaprosthesis (10%), RSA (17%), hemiarthroplasty (26%), and osteoarticular allograft (34%). Mechanical failure rates, including prosthetic loosening, fracture, and dislocation, were highest in allograft-containing constructs (APC, osteoarticular allograft, arthrodesis) followed by arthroplasty (hemiarthroplasty, RSA, megaprosthesis) and lowest for autografts (vascularized fibula, autograft arthrodesis). Infections involving RSA (9%) were higher than hemiarthroplasty (0%) and megaprosthesis (4%). Postoperative function as measured by MSTS score were similar amongst all prosthetic options, ranging from 66% to 74%, and claviculo pro humeri (CPH) was slightly better (83%). Patients were generally limited to active abduction of approximately 45° and no greater than 90°. With resection of the rotator cuff, deltoid muscle or axillary nerve, function and stability were compromised even further. If the rotator cuff was sacrificed but the deltoid and axillary nerve preserved, active forward flexion and abduction were superior with RSA., Discussion: Various reconstruction techniques for the proximal humerus lead to relatively similar functional results. Surgical choice should be tailored to anatomic defect and functional requirements.

Background: Severe postoperative knee contractures after arthroplasty or megaprosthesis reconstruction occur rarely, but are devastating complications. Management of preoperative flexion contractures is well-described, but there is a paucity of literature for surgical treatment of postoperative contractures. A retrospective chart review was performed for a single surgeon of cases between 1996 and 2014., Results: Nine patients (5 of 66 for pediatrics; 4 of 95 for adults) underwent surgical release for severe stiffness after implantation of knee megaprosthesis. The total arc of motion was improved from a preoperative mean of 34° (range, 10° to 70°) to a postoperative mean 89° (63° to 125°). The amount of extension improved by a mean of 27° (range, -3° to +70°) and the amount of flexion improved by a mean of 28° (range, -10° to +75°)., Conclusion: Surgical release of severe postoperative knee contracture is a challenging procedure, but in most cases, the amount of extension and flexion can be improved, yielding a greater total arc of motion.

Introduction: Achieving skeletal fixation in the presence of progressive bone loss is a surgical challenge, especially in cases of periprosthetic fracture (PPF). Unpredictable fracture patterns and preexisting bone loss frequently combine in this patient group. Megaprosthetic arthroplasty allows for immediate mobilisation and shorter periods of rehabilitation. We describe the clinical outcomes of a cohort of LPS™ megaprostheses performed for PPF by a single surgeon at our institution., Methods: Between July 2013 and November 2015, 23 patients underwent endoprosthetic femoral replacement of which 16 were performed for PPF or bone loss. Patient demographics, surgical indication, operative details, implant composition, blood loss, survival, and revision surgery details were recorded in a prospectively maintained database. Patients underwent serial clinical and X-ray evaluations at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months post surgery with yearly reviews thereafter., Results: The PPF cohort consisted of 9 males and 7 females with a mean age of 75 and a mean follow up of 19.2 months. The mean Oxford score prior to fracture was 41 (range 12-48), and 39 (range 13-48, p  = 0.6) post megaprosthesis insertion. Postoperative dislocation of the megaprosthesis occurred in two patients (12.5%), with no postoperative infections recorded., Conclusion: We report minimal postoperative changes in functional outcome scores. The results of revision arthroplasty with LPS™ proximal femur megaprosthesis were satisfactory in 15/16 patients at a mean follow-up of 19.2 months. We recommend the use of megaprostheses in patients with markedly deficient bone stock for whom other available reconstructive procedures are unavailable.

Total scapulectomy and reconstruction has been performed for scapular tumor, however, most of the reconstruction methods have resulted in poor functional outcomes and there is still room for improvement. Most of the reports of reconstruction after scapulectomy are from a single institution. In the present study, we investigated functional outcomes after total scapulectomy in a multicenter study in The Eastern Asian Musculoskeletal Oncology Group (EAMOG). Thirty-three patients who underwent total scapulectomy were registered at EAMOG affiliated hospitals. The patients were separated into no reconstruction group (n=8), humeral suspension group (n=15) and prosthesis group (n=10). Functional outcome was assessed by the Enneking score. One-way ANOVA was used to compare parameters between the patient groups. Complications included five local recurrences, one superficial infection, one dislocation and one clavicle protrusion. The average follow-up period was 43.5  months. The average active flexion range was 45.8° (0-120°), and 37.1° in abduction (0-120°). The mean total functional score was 22.9 out of 30 (15-29), which is a satisfactory score following resection of the shoulder girdle. There were significant differences in reconstruction methods for active range of motion. Bony reconstruction provided better range of motion in this study. There was a variety of reconstruction methods after scapulectomy in the eastern Asian countries. Although better functional score was obtained using scapular prosthesis or recycled bone and prosthesis composite grafting, postoperative function is still lower than preoperative function. Modified designed prosthesis with or without combination of recycle bone or allograft would restore the lost shoulder function in the future.

Introduction: Pathological fractures represent an adverse prognostic factor in primary and metastatic bone tumours. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of tumour silver-coated prosthesis implanted after pathological fractures., Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 30 patients with pathological limb fracture after primary or metastatic bone tumours treated by the same surgeon with wide margin resection and tumour prosthesis implant between 2005 and 2015. Silver-coated prostheses were implanted in 17 patients and uncoated prostheses were implanted in 13 patients. The primary outcome of the study was to evaluate the infective risk, the secondary outcomes were survival and functional level (visual analogue scale [VAS], 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF 36], and Musculoskeletal Tumour Society [MSTS] score) obtained at the longest follow-up available. A multivariate analysis was performed considering age, sex, tumour histology, grading and location, resection size, concomitant radiotherapy/chemotherapy, use of mesh for soft tissue reconstruction and local complications (dislocation, relapse, implant breakage). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis of explanted prosthesis was performed to study the residual silver-coating., Results: The average age of patients in the study was 56.2 years (range 12-78 years). Silver-coated prostheses were implanted in 56.7% of patients, and uncoated tumour prostheses were used in the remaining 43.3%. The mean follow-up was 40.7 months. A total of 26.7% of patients died at a median time of 28.6 months after surgery. The overall rate of complications was 30%, with 16.7% due to infection. A total of 11.8% of the patients treated with silver-coated implants developed infection compared with 23.1% of the patients treated with uncoated tumour prostheses. There were no cases of early infection in the silver-coated prosthesis group, whereas early infection occurred in 66.7% of patients in the uncoated prosthesis group. All the functional outcomes were significantly improved after surgery. None of the other parameters analysed can be considered a significant negative prognostic factor for infection. The SEM analyses showed severe silver-coating degradation 2 years after first implant. No case of silver toxicity was demonstrated., Discussion: There are few papers in the literature about infective complications in tumour prosthesis after pathological fracture. Silver-coated implants showed a protective action against early infection. Late infection rate was similar between the groups, thereby indicating a reduction of antimicrobial activity for the silver-coating over time., Conclusions: Silver-coated prostheses are a protective factor against early infections in limb salvage surgery after pathological fractures, so may represent the first-choice of implants in this type of surgery., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Modular megaprosthesis (MP) and allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) are the most commonly used reconstructions for large bone defects of the proximal tibia. The primary objective of this study was to compare the two different techniques in terms of failures and functional results. A total of 42 consecutive patients with a mean age of 39.6 years (range 15-81 years) who underwent a reconstruction of the proximal tibia between 2001 and 2012 were included. Twenty-three patients were given an MP, and 19 patients received an APC. There were nine reconstruction failures after an average follow-up of 62 months: five in the MP group and four in the APC group (p=0.957). The 10-year implant survival rate was 78.8% for the MP and 93.7% for the APC (p=0.224). There were no relevant differences between the two groups in functional results. Both MP and APC are valid and satisfactory reconstructive options for massive bone defects in the proximal tibia. In high-demanding patients with no further risk factors, an APC should be considered to provide the best possible functional result for the extensor mechanism., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Review the outcome of patients with complex fractures around the knee treated with megaprosthesis., Method: Retrospective observational study of 10 patients was undertaken., Results: Six patients were treated with a distal femoral endoprosthesis (DEFPR) and four with an augmented rotating hinge knee replacement (RHK). The mean post-operative Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) was 62.5 for the whole cohort (RHK group 79.3, compared with 49.2 in the DFEPR group ( p  = 0.038), peri-prosthetic fracture group was 46.3, compared with 75.6 in native knee fracture group ( p  = 0.04))., Conclusion: A megaprosthesis is a viable option in complex fractures around the knee.

Introduction: The recent evolution of prosthesis technology has enabled the surgeon to replace entire limbs. These special prostheses, or megaprostheses, were developed for the treatment of severe oncological bone loss; however, the indications and applications of these devices have expanded to other orthopaedic and trauma situations. For some years, surgeons have been implanting megaprostheses in non-oncological conditions, such as acute trauma in severe bone loss and poor bone quality; post-traumatic failures, both aseptic and septic (represented by complex non-unions and critical size bone defects); major bone loss in prosthetic revision, both aseptic and septic; periprosthetic fractures with component mobilisation and poor bone stock condition. The purpose of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the complications during and after the implantation of megaprosthesis of the lower limb in post-traumatic and prosthetic bone loss, and to propose tips about how to avoid and manage such complications., Materials and Methods: All the complications and difficulties we have encountered during or after the implantation of megaprosthesis in non-oncology patients were evaluated retrospectively. A total of 72 patients were treated with large resection mono-and bi-articular prostheses between January 2008 and January 2014., Results: The main critical problems found in the study were: restoration of the correct length and rotation of the limb; reconstruction of the knee extensor mechanism; trochanteric reconstruction; stability/dislocation of the implant; mobility/range of motion (ROM) of the implant; skin cover; sepsis, and bone quality., Conclusion: Megaprosthesis in severe bone loss can be considered as an available solution for the orthopaedic surgeon in extreme, appropriately selected cases. This type of complex surgery must be performed in specialised centres where knowledge and technologies are present. Patients with severe bone loss should not be treated in the same way as oncology patients because life expectancy is definitely longer; therefore, the surgical technique and the system implantation must be extremely rigorous to ensure longevity of the prosthesis. The characteristics of the bone and soft tissue conditions in these patients are very different from those presented by oncology patients, which creates critical problems that the surgeon should be able to manage to avoid serious complications., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)