Literature DB >> 15165016

Lower limb salvage surgery with MUTARS endoprostheses: 2 to 7 year results.

Christian Heisel1, Steffen J Breusch, Gernot Schmid, Ludger Bernd.   

Abstract

The reconstruction of bone defects remains a challenge in orthopaedic oncology. Allogenic and autologous bone grafts, as well as megaprostheses are well-recognised methods for bone reconstruction. Modular, both cemented and cementless, endoprosthetic systems have become more popular to bridge defects of different sizes. The clinical and radiological results of 50 consecutive patients treated with MUTARS endoprostheses between 1995 and 2000 were evaluated in a prospective clinical study. The average follow-up was 46 months (25-86 months). Clinical evaluation showed good results with an average Enneking-Score of 72% (33-100%, SD +/- 19). Radiological evaluation showed various patterns of bone remodelling including extracortical bone bridging. Early symptomatic loosening occurred in 11 cases, necessitating revision surgery. In conclusion, the use of the MUTARS Endoprosthesis may be a valuable tool in the treatment of major bone defects in the lower limb, if the problems with the first-generation design can be solved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15165016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop Belg        ISSN: 0001-6462            Impact factor:   0.500


  7 in total

Review 1.  Megaprostheses for the treatment of malignant bone tumours of the lower limbs.

Authors:  Christian Heisel; Stefan Kinkel; Ludger Bernd; Volker Ewerbeck
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-09-12       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  [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

Review 3.  State-of-the-art approach for bone sarcomas.

Authors:  Andreas F Mavrogenis; Andrea Angelini; Christos Vottis; Emanuela Palmerini; Eugenio Rimondi; Giuseppe Rossi; Panayiotis J Papagelopoulos; Pietro Ruggieri
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-05-03

4.  Distal femur reconstruction with modular tumour prostheses: a single Institution analysis of implant survival comparing fixed versus rotating hinge knee prostheses.

Authors:  Elisa Pala; Giulia Trovarelli; Andrea Angelini; Pietro Ruggieri
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-06-04       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Survival of modern knee tumor megaprostheses: failures, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis.

Authors:  Elisa Pala; Giulia Trovarelli; Teresa Calabrò; Andrea Angelini; Caterina N Abati; Pietro Ruggieri
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Load and failure behavior of human muscle samples in the context of proximal femur replacement.

Authors:  Stefan Schleifenbaum; Michael Schmidt; Robert Möbius; Thomas Wolfskämpf; Christian Schröder; Ronny Grunert; Niels Hammer; Torsten Prietzel
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-04-06       Impact factor: 2.362

7.  lower limbs kinematic assessment of the effect of a gym and hydrotherapy rehabilitation protocol after knee megaprosthesis: a case report.

Authors:  Nicola Lovecchio; Luciana Sciumè; Matteo Zago; Lorenzo Panella; Maurizio Lopresti; Chiarella Sforza
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2016-03-31
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.