BACKGROUND: With the improved survival for patients with malignant bone tumors, there is a trend to reconstruct defects using biologic techniques. While the use of an intercalary allograft is an option, the procedures are technically demanding and it is unclear whether the complication rates and survival are similar to other approaches. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We evaluated survivorship, complications, and functional scores of patients after receiving intercalary femur segmental allografts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 83 patients who underwent an intercalary femur segmental allograft reconstruction. We determined allograft survival using the Kaplan-Meier method. We evaluated patient function with the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scoring system. Minimum followup was 24 months (median, 61 months; range, 24-182 months). RESULTS: Survivorship was 85% (95% confidence interval: 93%-77%) at 5 years and 76% (95% confidence interval: 89%-63%) at 10 years. Allografts were removed in 15 of the 83 patients: one with infection, one with local recurrence, and 13 with fractures. Of the 166 host-donor junctions, 22 (13%) did not initially heal. Nonunion rate was 19% for diaphyseal junctions and 3% for metaphyseal junctions. We observed an increase in the diaphysis nonunion rate in patients fixed with nails (28%) compared to those fixed with plates (15%). Fracture rate was 17% and related to areas of the allograft not adequately protected with internal fixation. All patients without complications had mainly good or excellent Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional results. CONCLUSIONS: Diaphyseal junctions have higher nonunion rates than metaphyseal junctions. The internal fixation should span the entire allograft to avoid the risk of fracture. Our observations suggest segmental allograft of the femur provides an acceptable alternative in reconstructing tumor resections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: With the improved survival for patients with malignant bone tumors, there is a trend to reconstruct defects using biologic techniques. While the use of an intercalary allograft is an option, the procedures are technically demanding and it is unclear whether the complication rates and survival are similar to other approaches. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We evaluated survivorship, complications, and functional scores of patients after receiving intercalary femur segmental allografts. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 83 patients who underwent an intercalary femur segmental allograft reconstruction. We determined allograft survival using the Kaplan-Meier method. We evaluated patient function with the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scoring system. Minimum followup was 24 months (median, 61 months; range, 24-182 months). RESULTS: Survivorship was 85% (95% confidence interval: 93%-77%) at 5 years and 76% (95% confidence interval: 89%-63%) at 10 years. Allografts were removed in 15 of the 83 patients: one with infection, one with local recurrence, and 13 with fractures. Of the 166 host-donor junctions, 22 (13%) did not initially heal. Nonunion rate was 19% for diaphyseal junctions and 3% for metaphyseal junctions. We observed an increase in the diaphysis nonunion rate in patients fixed with nails (28%) compared to those fixed with plates (15%). Fracture rate was 17% and related to areas of the allograft not adequately protected with internal fixation. All patients without complications had mainly good or excellent Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional results. CONCLUSIONS: Diaphyseal junctions have higher nonunion rates than metaphyseal junctions. The internal fixation should span the entire allograft to avoid the risk of fracture. Our observations suggest segmental allograft of the femur provides an acceptable alternative in reconstructing tumor resections. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: N Araki; A Myoui; S Kuratsu; N Hashimoto; T Inoue; I Kudawara; T Ueda; H Yoshikawa; N Masaki; A Uchida Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: G W Blunn; T W Briggs; S R Cannon; P S Walker; P S Unwin; S Culligan; J P Cobb Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Arik Zaretski; Aharon Amir; Isaac Meller; David Leshem; Yehuda Kollender; Yoav Barnea; Jacob Bickels; Thomas Shpitzer; Dean Ad-El; Eyal Gur Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: D Luis Muscolo; Miguel A Ayerza; Luis Aponte-Tinao; Maximiliano Ranalletta; Eduardo Abalo Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Amir Sternheim; Dani Rotman; Prakash Nayak; Michelle Arkhangorodsky; Michael J Daly; Jonathan C Irish; Peter C Ferguson; Jay S Wunder Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Karem M Zekry; Norio Yamamoto; Katsuhiro Hayashi; Akihiko Takeuchi; Takashi Higuchi; Kensaku Abe; Yuta Taniguchi; Ali Zein A A Alkhooly; Ahmed Saleh Abd-Elfattah; Ezzat H Fouly; Adel Refaat Ahmed; Hiroyuki Tsuchiya Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2017-03-25 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: J I Albergo; L C Gaston; G L Farfalli; M Laitinen; M Parry; M A Ayerza; M Risk; L M Jeys; L A Aponte-Tinao Journal: Musculoskelet Surg Date: 2019-03-08
Authors: Luis Aponte-Tinao; Lucas E Ritacco; Miguel A Ayerza; D Luis Muscolo; Jose I Albergo; Germán L Farfalli; Germán L Farfall Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.176