Literature DB >> 22743630

[Proximal and total femur replacement].

P H Pennekamp1, D C Wirtz, H R Dürr.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Reconstruction of segmental bone defects of the proximal femur following wide tumor resection or revision arthroplasty. INDICATIONS: Aggressive benign or primary malignant bone tumors of the proximal femur; destructive metastases; massive segmental bone defects of the proximal femur; periprosthetic fractures. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Local infection; very short life expectancy (< 3 months); massive deficiency of acetabular bone stock. OPERATIVE TECHNIQUE: Anterolateral approach. Exposure and detachment of the iliopsoas and gluteus medius muscle from the proximal femur with a sufficient safety margin to the bone; distal transsection of the vastus lateralis/intermedius and rectus femoris muscle according to the extraosseous tumor extension; distal femur osteotomy al least 3 cm beyond the farthest point of tumor extension; in case of total femur replacement, additional lateral arthrotomy of the knee with resection of the ligaments and menisci; reaming of the medullary canal after securing the shaft with a Verbrugge clamp; trial assembly and reduction followed by the definitive implantation of the prosthesis with adjustment of the femoral neck anteversion in 5° increments; soft tissue reconstruction and fixation to an attachment tube covering the prosthesis; in case of total femur replacement, the preparation of the tibia is followed by the coupling of the tibial and femoral components. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Infection prophylaxis, 20 kg partial weight bearing, continuous passive motion.
RESULTS: A total of 20  patients with proximal femur replacement and 2 patients with total femur replacement implanted between June 2007 and December 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Three patients had primary malignant bone tumors, while 19 patients underwent resection for metastatic disease. The mean age at surgery was 62.0 ± 18.1 years (18-82 years). Fifteen patients with a mean follow-up of 20.3 ± 17.2 months (4-51 months) were studied. Among the 22 cases, periprosthetic infection occurred in 3 patients (13.6%), dislocation in 2 patients (9.1%). Evaluation of the functional outcome in 15 patients using the MSTS score by Enneking revealed 3 very good (20%), 4 good (26.7%), 6 fair (40%), and 2 poor (13.3%) results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22743630     DOI: 10.1007/s00064-011-0061-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol        ISSN: 0934-6694            Impact factor:   1.154


  34 in total

1.  Two-stage revision for infected endoprostheses used in tumor surgery.

Authors:  Robert J Grimer; Mohan Belthur; C Chandrasekar; Simon R Carter; Roger M Tillman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Soft tissue reconstruction of megaprostheses using a trevira tube.

Authors:  G Gosheger; A Hillmann; N Lindner; R Rödl; C Hoffmann; H Bürger; W Winkelmann
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  The influence of the alloy of megaprostheses on infection rate.

Authors:  Georg Gosheger; Christian Goetze; Jendrik Hardes; Uwe Joosten; Winfried Winkelmann; Christof von Eiff
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-02-13       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Prognostic factors in high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremities or trunk: an analysis of 1,702 patients treated on neoadjuvant cooperative osteosarcoma study group protocols.

Authors:  Stefan S Bielack; Beate Kempf-Bielack; Günter Delling; G Ulrich Exner; Silke Flege; Knut Helmke; Rainer Kotz; Mechthild Salzer-Kuntschik; Matthias Werner; Winfried Winkelmann; Andreas Zoubek; Heribert Jürgens; Kurt Winkler
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-02-01       Impact factor: 44.544

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

Authors:  F Mittermayer; R Windhager; M Dominkus; P Krepler; E Schwameis; M Sluga; R Kotz; G Strasser
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2002-04

6.  [Infection management of megaimplants].

Authors:  R Ascherl
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  Influence of chemotherapy on perioperative complications in limb salvage surgery for bone tumors.

Authors:  D J McDonald; R Capanna; F Gherlinzoni; G Bacci; A Ferruzzi; R Casadei; A Ferraro; A Cazzola; M Campanacci
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1990-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Risk factors for prosthetic joint infection: case-control study.

Authors:  E F Berbari; A D Hanssen; M C Duffy; J M Steckelberg; D M Ilstrup; W S Harmsen; D R Osmon
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 9.079

9.  Experience with cemented large segment endoprostheses for tumors.

Authors:  Sanjeev Sharma; Robert E Turcotte; Marc H Isler; Cindy Wong
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Modular endoprosthetic replacement for metastatic tumours of the proximal femur.

Authors:  Coonoor R Chandrasekar; Robert J Grimer; Simon R Carter; Roger M Tillman; Adesegun T Abudu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2008-11-04       Impact factor: 2.359

View more
  4 in total

1.  Distal femoral replacement with the MML system: a single center experience with an average follow-up of 86 months.

Authors:  Andreas Toepfer; Norbert Harrasser; Paul-Ruben Schwarz; Florian Pohlig; Ulrich Lenze; Heinrich M L Mühlhofer; Ludger Gerdesmeyer; Ruediger von Eisenhart-Rothe; Christian Suren
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 2.362

2.  Short-stem reconstruction for megaendoprostheses in case of an ultrashort proximal femur.

Authors:  Ralf Dieckmann; Marcel-Philipp Henrichs; Georg Gosheger; Steffen Höll; Jendrik Hardes; Arne Streitbürger
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-05-31       Impact factor: 2.362

3.  Short- to long-term follow-up of total femoral replacement in non-oncologic patients.

Authors:  Andreas Toepfer; Norbert Harrasser; Isabel Petzschner; Florian Pohlig; Ulrich Lenze; Ludger Gerdesmeyer; Dominik Pförringer; Marcel Toepfer; Marc Beirer; Moritz Crönlein; Ruediger von Eisenhart-Rothe; Heinz Mühlhofer
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  Is total femoral replacement for non-oncologic and oncologic indications a safe procedure in limb preservation surgery? A single center experience of 22 cases.

Authors:  Andreas Toepfer; Norbert Harrasser; Isabel Petzschner; Florian Pohlig; Ulrich Lenze; Ludger Gerdesmeyer; Ruediger von Eisenhart-Rothe; Heinrich Mühlhofer; Christian Suren
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 2.175

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.