Literature DB >> 28770293

Case series of patients with pathological dyaphiseal fractures from metastatic bone disease.

Dinu Vermesan1, Radu Prejbeanu1, Horia Haragus1, Alis Dema2, Manuel D Oprea1, Diana Andrei3, Dan V Poenaru4, Marius Niculescu5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Fractures on pathologic bone have major impact on life quality. The appropriate treatment is not standardized, but the current literature delineates that surgery must provide adequate stabilization for the life expectancy. We aimed to review the epidemiology, treatment outcomes and survival in our department.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The electronic database from a major referral centre was searched for patients treated for tumours and fractures by the corresponding ICM-10 codes over five years. Eighty-nine patients were identified. Eleven females and nine males, with an average age of 64 years underwent 23 operations during the selected timeframe. Six fractures were subtrochanteric, five at the femoral neck and five at the femoral diaphysis. Seventeen cases were metastatic carcinomas, out of which five mammary, three pulmonary and seven carcinomas of undetermined origin without immunohistochemistry.
RESULTS: Fourteen types of surgical intervention were osteosynthesis with intramedullary nails and six were partial hip replacements of which one had proximal femur resection and revision stem hemiarthroplasty. Four patients had single metastatic lesions which underwent resection and defect filling using PMMA cement (polymethylmethacrylate). The follow-up period ranged between two and seven years or until death. Only five patients (25%) were alive at the last follow-up. Local recurrence appeared in one patient. There was one immediate post-operative complication (dehiscent wound) and one implant failure after five years and was replaced with a larger diameter (exchange nailing).
CONCLUSION: Both hip arthroplasty and femoral nailing are safe and routine procedures that are performed with relatively technical ease and low surgical stress and few peri-operative complications for the patient. They allow for immediate mobilization and weight-bearing with moderate and rapidly decreasing pain and discomfort.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arthroplasty; Bone tumor; Femur; Hip; Metastasis; Nailing; Pathologic fracture

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28770293     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3582-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  18 in total

1.  Surgical treatment of skeletal metastatic lesions of the proximal femur: endoprosthesis or reconstruction nail?

Authors:  R Wedin; H C F Bauer
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-12

Review 2.  Clinical relevance of altered bone immunopathology pathways around the elbow.

Authors:  D Vermesan; R Prejbeanu; H Haragus; D V Poenaru; M L Mioc; M Tatullo; A Abbinante; S Scacco; A Tarullo; F Inchingolo; M Caprio; R Cagiano
Journal:  Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.507

Review 3.  Surgical management of metastatic long bone fractures: principles and techniques.

Authors:  John Alan Scolaro; Richard D Lackman
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.020

Review 4.  Surgical treatment of metastatic disease of the femur.

Authors:  K C Swanson; D J Pritchard; F H Sim
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2000 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.020

5.  Musculo-skeletal tumors incidence and surgical treatment - A single center 5-year retrospective.

Authors:  J M Patrascu; D Vermesan; M L Mioc; V Lazureanu; S Florescu; A Tarullo; M Tatullo; A Abbinante; M Caprio; R Cagiano; H Haragus
Journal:  Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.507

6.  Endoprosthetic treatment is more durable for pathologic proximal femur fractures.

Authors:  Matthew Steensma; Patrick J Boland; Carol D Morris; Edward Athanasian; John H Healey
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Evaluation of the adult patient (aged >40 years) with a destructive bone lesion.

Authors:  Kristy L Weber
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.020

8.  Economic burden of metastatic bone disease in the U.S.

Authors:  Kathy L Schulman; Joseph Kohles
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-06-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Cementoplasty of metastases of the proximal femur: is it a safe palliative option?

Authors:  Frederic Deschamps; Geoffroy Farouil; Antoine Hakime; Ali Barah; Boris Guiu; Christophe Teriitehau; Anne Auperin; Thierry deBaere
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 3.464

10.  Metastatic disease of the femur: surgical treatment.

Authors:  William G Ward; Stephanie Holsenbeck; Frederick J Dorey; Jeff Spang; David Howe
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  4 in total

1.  Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of a patient-reported hip outcome score.

Authors:  Horia Haragus; Radu Prejbeanu; Dan V Poenaru; Bogdan Deleanu; Bogdan Timar; Dinu Vermesan
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-01-06       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Haematology panel biomarkers for humeral, femoral, and tibial diaphyseal fractures.

Authors:  Luchian Alexandru; Horia Haragus; Bogdan Deleanu; Bogdan Timar; Dan V Poenaru; Daliborca Cristina Vlad
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Application of Endoprosthetic Replacement in Old Patients with Isolated Proximal Femoral Bone Metastases.

Authors:  Peng Liu; Zhuan Wang; Shiyuan Zhang; Guoqiang Ding; Ke Tan; Ji Zhou
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-05-23       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  The ideal timing for nail dynamization in femoral shaft delayed union and non-union.

Authors:  Giovanni Vicenti; Davide Bizzoca; Massimiliano Carrozzo; Vittorio Nappi; Francesco Rifino; Giuseppe Solarino; Biagio Moretti
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 3.075

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.