Literature DB >> 25779874

[Intercalary reconstruction for diaphyseal bone defects with a modular replacement system: Clinical results].

M J Friedrich1, J Schmolders2, G Lob3, T M Randau2, S Gravius2, D C Wirtz2, P H Pennekamp2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Reconstruction and long-term stabilization of segmental diaphyseal bone defects of the humerus, femur, and tibia. INDICATIONS: Segmental bone defects due to aggressive benign or primary malignant bone tumors, trauma, pathological fractures, osteomyelitis, or failed osteosynthesis. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Acute or chronic local infections, large metadiaphyseal bone defects preventing adequate anchorage of the prosthesis, very short life expectancy (<3 months). SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Exposure and resection of the bony defect according to the preoperative planning. Reaming of the intramedullary canals proximally and distally followed by implantation of the stems (cemented or noncemented). Reducing sleeves can be used to bridge the difference in diameter between the nail and the spacer. Mounting of the spacer half shell with the threaded holes from underneath after adjusting for alignment and rotation. Assembling of the other half shell by guided pins to ensure proper alignment. Tightening of the clamping screws using a torque screwdriver. Connection of two spacers is possible. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Active physiotherapy and full weight bearing; antibiotic prophylaxis.
RESULTS: The results of 14 consecutive patients treated with 15 modular intercalary endoprostheses (Osteobridge™, Merete, Berlin, Germany) between January 2007 and January 2012 with a mean follow up of 24 ± 12 months (range 12-51 months) were evaluated retrospectively. One patient had a primary malignant bone tumor, while all the other patients underwent resection for metastatic disease. The mean age at surgery was 65.9 ± 15.7 years (range 25-83 years). The mean diaphyseal reconstruction length was 110 ± 50 mm (range 50-190 mm). Three patients (20%) required revision of the distal stem due to aseptic loosening. Evaluation of the functional outcome using the MSTS score by Enneking revealed 3 very good (22%), 7 good (50%), 4 fair (28%), and no poor results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bone diseases; Bone neoplasms; Diaphyses replacement; Neoplasm metastasis; Prostheses and implants

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25779874     DOI: 10.1007/s00064-014-0329-9

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


  7 in total

1.  Comparison of four reconstructive methods for diaphyseal defects of the humerus after tumor resection.

Authors:  Vasileios I Sakellariou; Andreas F Mavrogenis; George C Babis; Panayiotis N Soucacos; Evangelos A Magnissalis; Panayiotis J Papagelopoulos
Journal:  J Appl Biomech       Date:  2012-05-10       Impact factor: 1.833

Review 2.  The concept of induced membrane for reconstruction of long bone defects.

Authors:  Alain C Masquelet; Thierry Begue
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.472

3.  Intercalary diaphyseal endoprosthetic reconstruction for malignant tibial bone tumours.

Authors:  M D Sewell; S A Hanna; A McGrath; W J S Aston; G W Blunn; R C Pollock; J A Skinner; S R Cannon; T W R Briggs
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-08

4.  Femoral diaphyseal endoprosthetic reconstruction after segmental resection of primary bone tumours.

Authors:  S A Hanna; M D Sewell; W J S Aston; R C Pollock; J A Skinner; S R Cannon; T W R Briggs
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2010-06

5.  Intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction for diaphyseal bone tumours.

Authors:  E R Ahlmann; L R Menendez
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-11

Review 6.  Intercalary segmental reconstruction after bone tumor resection.

Authors:  B Fuchs; C Ossendorf; T Leerapun; F H Sim
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2008-01-11       Impact factor: 4.424

7.  A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system.

Authors:  W F Enneking; W Dunham; M C Gebhardt; M Malawar; D J Pritchard
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.176

  7 in total
  5 in total

Review 1.  [Complication profile and revision concepts for megaprosthetic reconstruction following tumour resection at the hip].

Authors:  H Fritzsche; J Goronzy; K-D Schaser; C Hofbauer; A E Postler; K P Günther
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  [Importance of revision- and tumor-endoprosthetics in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremity].

Authors:  P M Prodinger; N Harrasser; C Suren; F Pohlig; H Mühlhofer; J Schauwecker; R von Eisenhart-Rothe
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 3.  [Endoprosthetic replacement following intercalary resection].

Authors:  L Goebel; D Kohn; P Orth
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 4.  Peri- and Interprosthetic Femoral Fractures-Current Concepts and New Developments for Internal Fixation.

Authors:  Clemens Kösters; Daniel den Toom; Sebastian Metzlaff; Kiriakos Daniilidis; Linda Barz; Steffen Roßlenbroich
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  Preliminary results of a new intercalary modular endoprosthesis for the management of diaphyseal bone metastases.

Authors:  Kadir Büyükdoğan; Barlas Göker; Mazhar Tokgözoğlu; Ulukan İnan; Korhan Özkan; Tahsin Sami Çolak; Lercan Aslan; Mehmet Ali Deveci; Mehmet Ayvaz
Journal:  Jt Dis Relat Surg       Date:  2021-11-19
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.