Literature DB >> 23104043

Prophylactic stabilization for bone metastases, myeloma, or lymphoma: do we need to protect the entire bone?

Hasham M Alvi1, Timothy A Damron.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The current operative standard of care for disseminated malignant bone disease suggests stabilizing the entire bone to avoid the need for subsequent operative intervention but risks of doing so include complications related to embolic phenomena. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We questioned whether progression and reoperation occur with enough frequency to justify additional risks of longer intramedullary devices.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was done for 96 patients with metastases, myeloma, or lymphoma who had undergone stabilization or arthroplasty of impending or actual femoral or humeral pathologic fractures using an approach favoring intramedullary fixation devices and long-stem arthroplasty. Incidence of progressive bone disease, reoperation, and complications associated with fixation and arthroplasty devices in instrumented femurs or humeri was determined.
RESULTS: At minimum 0 months followup (mean, 11 months; range, 0-72 months), 80% of patients had died. Eleven of 96 patients (12%) experienced local bony disease progression; eight had local progression at the original site, two had progression at originally recognized discretely separate lesions, and one had a new lesion develop in the bone that originally was surgically treated. Six subjects (6.3%) required repeat operative intervention for symptomatic failure. Twelve (12.5%) patients experienced physiologic nonfatal complications potentially attributable to embolic phenomena from long intramedullary implants.
CONCLUSIONS: Because most patients in this series were treated with the intent to protect the bone with long intramedullary implants when possible, the reoperation rate may be lower than if the entire bone had not been protected. However, the low incidence of disease progression apart from originally identified lesions (one of 96) was considerably lower than the physiologic complication rate (12 of 96) potentially attributable to long intramedullary implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23104043      PMCID: PMC3563787          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2656-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  36 in total

1.  Femoral metastatic fractures treated with intramedullary nailing.

Authors:  C E Gibbons; S J Pope; J P Murphy; A J Hall
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Prospective quality of life research in bony metastatic disease.

Authors:  Edward Y Cheng
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Treatment of pathological fractures of the humeral shaft due to bone metastases: a comparison of intramedullary locking nail and plate osteosynthesis with adjunctive bone cement.

Authors:  S Dijkstra; J Stapert; H Boxma; T Wiggers
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 4.424

4.  Comparison of fixation of the femoral component without cement and fixation with use of a bone-vacuum cementing technique for the prevention of fat embolism during total hip arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  R P Pitto; M Koessler; J W Kuehle
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Impending and actual pathological fractures in patients with bone metastases of the long bones. A retrospective study of 233 surgically treated fractures.

Authors:  S Dijstra; T Wiggers; B N van Geel; H Boxma
Journal:  Eur J Surg       Date:  1994-10

6.  Biomechanical analysis of prophylactic fixation for middle third humeral impending pathologic fractures.

Authors:  T A Damron; M G Rock; S N Choudhury; J J Grabowski; K N An
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Surgical treatment for pathologic fracture.

Authors:  R Wedin
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand Suppl       Date:  2001-06

8.  Fixation of pathological fractures and impending long bone fractures in the course of neoplastic disease with the use of polymethylmethacrylate with added methotrexate.

Authors:  Roman Król; Sebastian Radomski
Journal:  Ortop Traumatol Rehabil       Date:  2003-06-30

Review 9.  Evaluation of impending fractures and indications for prophylactic fixation of metastases in long bones. Review of the literature.

Authors:  P Haentjens; P P Casteleyn; P Opdecam
Journal:  Acta Orthop Belg       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 0.500

10.  Pathologic fractures of the humerus.

Authors:  D J Pritchard
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  25 in total

Review 1.  Outcome of operative treatment of metastatic fractures of the humerus: a systematic review of twenty three clinical studies.

Authors:  Stein J Janssen; Teun Teunis; Francis J Hornicek; Jos A M Bramer; Joseph H Schwab
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-11-16       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  CORR Insights ®: Intramedullary nailing of femoral diaphyseal metastases: is it necessary to protect the femoral neck?

Authors:  Mark T Scarborough
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Causes and Frequencies of Reoperations After Endoprosthetic Reconstructions for Extremity Tumor Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Patrick Thornley; Matias Vicente; Austin MacDonald; Nathan Evaniew; Michelle Ghert; Roberto Velez
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  CORR Insights®: complications of cemented long-stem hip arthroplasties in metastatic bone disease revisited.

Authors:  Richard M Terek
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-07-12       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  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

6.  CORR Insights®: Is It Appropriate to Treat Sarcoma Metastases With Intramedullary Nailing?

Authors:  Benjamin J Miller
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-11-10       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Letter to the editor: Prophylactic stabilization for bone metastases, myeloma, or lymphoma: do we need to protect the entire bone?

Authors:  Robert U Ashford; Claire P Esler
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  Fear of impending fractures: when to refer? A case-based review.

Authors:  Caroline Kronisch; Federico Balagué; Jean Dudler
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 2.980

9.  Intramedullary nailing of femoral diaphyseal metastases: is it necessary to protect the femoral neck?

Authors:  Bryan Moon; Patrick Lin; Robert Satcher; Justin Bird; Valerae Lewis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 10.  Treatment for long bone metastases based on a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Costantino Errani; Andreas F Mavrogenis; Luca Cevolani; Silvia Spinelli; Andrea Piccioli; Giulio Maccauro; Nicola Baldini; Davide Donati
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2016-09-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.