Literature DB >> 20963431

Pasteurized autograft-prosthesis composite for proximal femoral reconstruction: an alternative to allograft composite.

Ahmed Shawky Eid1, Dae-Geun Jeon, Won Seok Song, Soo-Yong Lee, Wan Hyeong Cho.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Allograft-prosthesis composite (APC) for proximal femur reconstruction have shown favorable longevity and functional outcome compared to endoprosthesis, owing to restoration of bone stock, load-sharing property, and biological attachment of abductors and iliopsoas tendons. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This study examined whether a pasteurized-prosthesis composite (PPC) is comparable to APC regarding implant survival, functional outcome, and complication rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 18 patients with proximal femur malignancy that underwent reconstruction with a cemented pasteurized autograft-prosthesis composite between 1993 and 2008. We evaluated implant survival (Kaplan-Meier), functional outcome (MSTS score), complications and secondary operations.
RESULTS: The estimated survival rate of the 18 composites was 86% at 5 and 10 years. Within a mean follow-up of 93 months (median 113, range 14-163) two composites (11%) were removed due to un-resolving infection. The mean MSTS functional score of surviving 16 composites was 80% (range 70-95). Non-union and stem loosening in host bone were identified in a single patient, while infection developed in two patients. THA conversion occurred in three composites due to secondary osteoarthritis in two, and subluxation in one case. Two of the six cases, with greater trochanter (GT) reconstruction, showed GT avulsion. No autograft was fractured.
CONCLUSIONS: Pasteurized autograft-prosthesis composite (PPC) of the proximal femur has comparable survival rate, functional outcome, and complication rates to allograft-prosthesis composite (APC), thereby offering an alternative reconstructive option for proximal femoral reconstruction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20963431     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-010-1194-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  6 in total

Review 1.  Megaprosthesis versus Allograft Prosthesis Composite for massive skeletal defects.

Authors:  Deepak Gautam; Rajesh Malhotra
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-09-25

2.  Are Pasteurized Autografts Durable for Reconstructions After Bone Tumor Resections?

Authors:  Seung Yong Lee; Dae-Geun Jeon; Wan Hyeong Cho; Won Seok Song; Bum Suk Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Does Local Zoledronate Applied to Pasteurized Bone Autografts Improve the Likelihood of Union of Graft-Host Junctions after Limb-sparing Surgery?

Authors:  Piya Kiatisevi; Bhasanan Sukanthanak; Pongsiri Piakong; Piyabuth Kittithamvongs
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 4.755

4.  Intraoperative Extracorporeal Irradiation and Frozen Treatment on Tumor-bearing Autografts Show Equivalent Outcomes for Biologic Reconstruction.

Authors:  Po-Kuei Wu; Cheng-Fong Chen; Chao-Ming Chen; Yu-Chi Cheng; Shang-Wen Tsai; Tain-Hsiung Chen; Wei-Ming Chen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Pasteurized Autograft-Prosthesis Composite Reconstruction May Not Be a Viable Primary Procedure for Large Skeletal Defects after Resection of Sarcoma.

Authors:  Seung Yong Lee; Dae-Geun Jeon; Wan Hyeong Cho; Won Seok Song; Chang-Bae Kong; Bum Suk Kim
Journal:  Sarcoma       Date:  2017-06-04

6.  Pedicle frozen autograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions for malignant bone tumors of the proximal femur.

Authors:  Gang Xu; Shinji Miwa; Norio Yamamoto; Katsuhiro Hayashi; Akihiko Takeuchi; Kentaro Igarashi; Takashi Higuchi; Yuta Taniguchi; Yoshihiro Araki; Hirotaka Yonezawa; Sei Morinaga; Hiroyuki Tsuchiya
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-02-06       Impact factor: 2.362

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.