Literature DB >> 12002501

Revision of the Kotz type of tumour endoprosthesis for the lower limb.

F Mittermayer1, R Windhager, M Dominkus, P Krepler, E Schwameis, M Sluga, R Kotz, G Strasser.   

Abstract

In 251 patients over a period of 15 years an uncemented Kotz modular femoral and tibial reconstruction mega prosthesis was implanted after resection of a malignant tumour of the lower limb. Twenty-one patients (8.4%) underwent revision for aseptic loosening, again using an uncemented prosthesis, and five of these required a further revision procedure. The median follow-up time from the first revision was 60 months (11 to 168) and after a second revision, 33 months (2 to 50). The probability of a patient avoiding aseptic loosening for ten years was 96% for a proximal femoral, 76% for a distal femoral and 85% for a proximal tibial implant. At the time of follow-up all radiographs were assessed according to the International Symposium of Limb Salvage criteria. The first radiological signs of aseptic loosening were always seen at the most proximal or distal part of the anchorage stem at a mean of 12 months (4 to 23) after the first implantation. Using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score for evaluation, the clinical results showed a mean of 88% of normal function.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12002501     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.84b3.12204

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  25 in total

1.  [Megaprostheses of the knee joint].

Authors:  K Anagnostakos; D Kohn
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  [Reconstruction of the proximal femur with the MUTARS® system].

Authors:  W Winkelmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Revision of broken knee megaprostheses: new solution to old problems.

Authors:  Manish Agarwal; Ashish Gulia; B Ravi; Rupesh Ghyar; Ajay Puri
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Total Femur Replacement After Tumor Resection: Limb Salvage Usually Achieved But Complications and Failures are Common.

Authors:  Florian Sevelda; Reinhard Schuh; Jochen Gerhard Hofstaetter; Martina Schinhan; Reinhard Windhager; Philipp Theodor Funovics
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Early distal femoral endoprosthetic survival: cemented stems versus the Compress implant.

Authors:  A A Bhangu; M J Kramer; R J Grimer; R J O'Donnell
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-09-16       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  [Proximal and total femur replacement].

Authors:  P H Pennekamp; D C Wirtz; H R Dürr
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 1.154

Review 7.  [Revision of tumour endoprostheses around the knee joint. Review and own results].

Authors:  R Windhager; A Leithner; M Hochegger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.087

8.  Early equivalence of uncemented press-fit and Compress femoral fixation.

Authors:  German L Farfalli; Patrick J Boland; Carol D Morris; Edward A Athanasian; John H Healey
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-06-10       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Compress periprosthetic fractures: interface stability and ease of revision.

Authors:  Wakenda K Tyler; John H Healey; Carol D Morris; Patrick J Boland; Richard J O'Donnell
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Cemented distal femoral endoprostheses for musculoskeletal tumor: improved survival of modular versus custom implants.

Authors:  Adam J Schwartz; J Michael Kabo; Fritz C Eilber; Frederick R Eilber; Jeffrey J Eckardt
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.