Search

Background: Improvements in medical treatment for cancer have increased survival of cancer patients. We hypothesize that improvement in cancer treatment is reflected in increased survival after surgical intervention for metastatic bone disease (MBD) and that subsequent revision surgery does not pose a risk for survival. Methods: We identified a retrospective consecutive cohort who received bone resection and reconstruction (BRR) with implants (including total joint replacements (with or without wide resection) or bone reconstruction with an intercalary spacer or revisions procedures for failed implants with BBR technique) due to MBD from 2003 to 2008 (early cohort) and 2009 to 2013 (late cohort) at a tertiary referral center. We registered epidemiological data, type of implant (primary or a revision implant), patient survival (Kaplan–Meier), implant survival (competing risk analysis) and complications to surgery. Results: Three hundred and eleven procedures were performed in 291 patients (289 primary BRR (270 patients, early cohort n = 130 late cohort n = 140) and 22 revision BRR (21 patients)). Overall survival was 44% (95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 39–50) and 32% (95% CI: 27–38) after 1 and 2 years. No difference in survival between the early and late cohort was found (p = .458), or between primary and revision BRR (p = .465). Time from diagnosis of cancer to surgery was shorter in the early cohort (p < .001). The cumulative incidence of failure of implant was 2% (95% CI: 0–3%) at 1 year and 3% (95% CI: 1–6%) at 2 years. One year cumulative implant failure for revision implants was 5% (95% CI: 0–13%) at 1 and 2 years. The risk of failure was not statistical significant between primary and revision implant (p = .293) in competing risk analysis. Discussion: We were not able to identify an increased survival after surgery for MBD over time, however, we found an increased interval from diagnosis to surgery for MBD. This study suggests that revision surgery

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of our surveillance program for soft tissue sarcomas (STS) and borderline tumors (BT) for identification of local recurrence and lung metastases the first 2 years postoperatively.METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the medical files of all patients (n = 232) with STS and BT of the extremities and trunk wall who underwent surgery from 2010 to 2013. Two-hundred-and-thirty-two patients were included in the local recurrence study and 116 patients in the lung metastasis study. We extracted information on how local recurrence and lung metastases were detected. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and 2 × 2-contingency table with Chi-square test were used. Local recurrence and lung metastases were analyzed separately.RESULTS: Twenty-five of 232 patients experienced local recurrence and 19 of 116 patients experienced lung metastases. Compared to clinical examination, local imaging led to a larger amount of local recurrence suspicions (37/560 vs. 8/706). Suspicions occurring on local imaging were more accurate than on clinical examination (17/37 vs. 0/8 affirmed). Local imaging identified a larger amount of local recurrence than clinical examination (17/560 vs. 0/706). Thirty-three patients suspected local recurrence themselves, 8 were affirmed. Compared to x-ray, computerized tomography (CT) led to a larger amount of lung metastasis suspicions (22/284 vs. 6/276). Suspicions occurring on CT seemed more accurate than on x-ray (15/22 vs. 2/6 affirmed). CT found a larger amount of lung metastases than x-ray (15/284 vs. 2/276). Three patients suspected lung metastases themselves, 1 was affirmed.CONCLUSION: Bi-annual local imaging and CT the first 2 years after surgery of STS detect local recurrence and lung metastases better than clinical examination and x-ray. Clinical examination and x-ray between these examinations is unnecessary. Patients' own suspicion of local recurrence and lung metastases is still important.

Estimating patient survival has hitherto been the main focus when treating metastatic bone disease (MBD) in the appendicular skeleton. This has been done in an attempt to allocate the patient to a surgical procedure that outlives them. No questions have been addressed as to whether the extent of the surgery and thus the surgical trauma reduces survival in this patient group. We wanted to evaluate if perioperative parameters such as blood loss, extent of bone resection, and duration of surgery were risk factors for 30-day mortality in patients having surgery due to MBD in the appendicular skeleton. We retrospectively identified 270 consecutive patients who underwent joint replacement surgery or intercalary spacing for skeletal metastases in the appendicular skeleton from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2013. We collected intraoperative (duration of surgery, extent of bone resection, and blood loss), demographic (age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologist score [ASA score], and Karnofsky score), and disease-specific (primary cancer) variables. An association with 30-day mortality was addressed using univariate and multivariable analyses and calculation of odds ratio (OR). All patients were included in the analysis. ASA score 3 + 4 (OR 4.16 [95% confidence interval, CI, 1.80-10.85], P=0.002) and Karnofsky performance status below 70 (OR 7.34 [95% CI 3.16-19.20], P<0.001) were associated with increased 30-day mortality in univariate analysis. This did not change in multivariable analysis. No parameters describing the extent of the surgical trauma were found to be associated with 30-day mortality. The 30-day mortality in patients undergoing surgery for MBD is highly dependent on the general health status of the patients as measured by the ASA score and the Karnofsky performance status. The extent of surgery, measured as duration of surgery, blood loss, and degree of bone resection were not associated with 30-day mortality.

Background. Compared to conventional hip arthroplasty, endoprosthetic reconstruction after tumor resection is associated with a substantially increased risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), with reported rates of around 10% in a recent systematic review. The optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for this patient population remains unknown. Material and Methods. To establish the infection rate associated with prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis in our department, we performed a retrospective review of all adult patients who underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur after tumor resection for metastatic bone disease during a 4-year period from 2010 to 2013 (n = 105 patients). Results. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis was administrated for an extended duration of a mean of 7.4 days. The overall infection rate was 3.6% (4/111 implants), infection free survival was 96% at 2 years, and the risk of amputation associated with infection was 25% (1/4 patients). Discussion. Preemptive eradication of bacterial contamination may be of value in certain clinical situations, where the risk level and consequences of implant-associated infection are unacceptable. Our findings suggest that extended postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the risk of PJI in patients undergoing tumor resection and endoprosthetic replacement for metastatic bone disease associated impending or de facto pathologic fractures of the proximal femur.