Literature DB >> 19092014

Modular endoprosthetic replacement for tumours of the proximal femur.

C R Chandrasekar1, R J Grimer, S R Carter, R M Tillman, A Abudu, L Buckley.   

Abstract

Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur may be required to treat primary bone tumours or destructive metastases either with impending or established pathological fracture. Modular prostheses are available off the shelf and can be adapted to most reconstructive situations for this purpose. We have assessed the clinical and functional outcome of using the METS (Stanmore Implants Worldwide) modular tumour prosthesis to reconstruct the proximal femur in 100 consecutive patients between 2001 and 2006. We compared the results with the published series for patients managed with modular and custom-made endoprosthetic replacements for the same conditions. There were 52 males and 48 females with a mean age of 56.3 years (16 to 84) and a mean follow-up of 24.6 months (0 to 60). In 65 patients the procedure was undertaken for metastases, in 25 for a primary bone tumour, and in ten for other malignant conditions. A total of 46 patients presented with a pathological fracture, and 19 presented with failed fixation of a previous pathological fracture. The overall patient survival was 63.6% at one year and 23.1% at five years, and was significantly better for patients with a primary bone tumour than for those with metastatic tumour (82.3% vs 53.3%, respectively at one year (p = 0.003)). There were six early dislocations of which five could be treated by closed reduction. No patient needed revision surgery for dislocation. Revision surgery was required by six (6%) patients, five for pain caused by acetabular wear and one for tumour progression. Amputation was needed in four patients for local recurrence or infection. The estimated five-year implant survival with revision as the endpoint was 90.7%. The mean Toronto Extremity Salvage score was 61% (51% to 95%). The implant survival and complications resulting from the use of the modular system were comparable to the published series of both custom-made and other modular proximal femoral implants. We conclude that at intermediate follow-up the modular tumour prosthesis for proximal femur replacement provides versatility, a low incidence of implant-related complications and acceptable function for patients with metastatic tumours, pathological fractures and failed fixation of the proximal femur. It also functions as well as a custom-made endoprosthetic replacement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19092014     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20448

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


  41 in total

1.  What Are the Functional Results and Complications With Long Stem Hemiarthroplasty in Patients With Metastases to the Proximal Femur?

Authors:  Joel R Peterson; Alexander P Decilveo; Ian T O'Connor; Ivan Golub; James C Wittig
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Can bone scintigraphy predict the final outcome of pasteurized autografts?

Authors:  Ahmed Shawky Eid; Dae-Geun Jeon; Wan Hyeong Cho
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2010-02-23       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 3.  [Management of complications in megaprostheses].

Authors:  J Hardes; H Ahrens; G Gosheger; M Nottrott; R Dieckmann; M-P Henrichs; A Streitbürger
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.000

4.  [Subtrochanteric renal cell carcinoma metastasis: implantation of a femoral head preserving prosthesis].

Authors:  A S Spiro; L Grossterlinden; J Zustin; J M Rueger; M H Priemel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Survival, complications and functional outcomes of cemented megaprostheses for high-grade osteosarcoma around the knee.

Authors:  Chunlin Zhang; Jianping Hu; Kunpeng Zhu; Tao Cai; Xiaolong Ma
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Reconstruction of the proximal femur with a modular resection prosthesis.

Authors:  Teresa Calabró; Rupert Van Rooyen; Ilaria Piraino; Elisa Pala; Giulia Trovarelli; Georgios N Panagopoulos; Panayiotis D Megaloikonomos; Andrea Angelini; Andreas F Mavrogenis; Pietro Ruggieri
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-04-04

7.  Incidence and management of hip dislocation in tumour patients with a modular prosthesis of the proximal femur.

Authors:  Stephan E Puchner; Philipp T Funovics; Christian Hipfl; Martin Dominkus; Reinhard Windhager; Jochen G Hofstaetter
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Proximal femoral replacement in non-oncologic patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ivan De Martino; Rocco D'Apolito; Allina A Nocon; Thomas P Sculco; Peter K Sculco; Mathias P Bostrom
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-11-10       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Trends in the surgical treatment of pathologic proximal femur fractures among Musculoskeletal Tumor Society members.

Authors:  Matthew Steensma; John H Healey
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Trochanter/calcar preserving reconstruction in tumors involving the femoral head and neck.

Authors:  Hwan Seong Cho; Young-Kyun Lee; Yong-Chan Ha; Kyung-Hoi Koo
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2016-07-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.