Literature DB >> 29081066

Long-term outcomes of cement in cement technique for revision endoprosthesis surgery.

Nicholas M Bernthal1, Vishal Hegde1, Stephen D Zoller1, Howard Y Park1, Jason H Ghodasra1, Daniel Johansen2, Frederick Eilber3, Fritz C Eilber3, Chandhanarat Chandhanayingyong4, Jeffrey J Eckardt1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: Cemented endoprosthetic reconstruction after resection of primary bone sarcomas has been a standard-of-care option for decades. With increased patient survival, the incidence of failed endoprostheses requiring revision surgery has increased. Revision of cemented endoprotheses by cementing into the existing cement mantle (CiC) is technically demanding.
METHODS: This is a retrospective review of our endoprosthesis database of 512 consecutive cemented endoprosthetic reconstructions performed for oncologic diagnoses between 1980 and 2014. A total of 54 implants (mean patient age 32 years, range 13-81) were revised with a CiC technique. Outcomes evaluated were prosthesis survival, revision surgery categorized according to the Henderson Failure Mode Classification, complications, and functional scores.
RESULTS: Fifteen-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 34% for initial revision and 39% for subsequent revision implants. Mean revised Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) Score was 27 at latest follow-up. Infection rate was 2%, 9%, and 13% for primary endoprostheses, initial revisions, and subsequent revisions, respectively. Limb salvage rate was 87%.
CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow up, endoprostheses revised with the CiC technique showed consistent 15-year survival from initial (34%) to subsequent (39%) revision. Despite a relatively high failure rate, these results are encouraging and demonstrate that this is a conservative, repeatable technique.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Kaplan-Meier survival; cement in cement; endoprostheses; revision; sarcoma

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29081066      PMCID: PMC5854518          DOI: 10.1002/jso.24862

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0022-4790            Impact factor:   3.454


  19 in total

1.  Custom cross-pin fixation of 32 tumor endoprostheses stems.

Authors:  Christopher P Cannon; Jeffrey J Eckardt; J Michael Kabo; William G Ward; Cynthia M Kelly; Philip Z Wirganowicz; Apichat Asavamongkolkul; Ramiro Nieves; Frederick R Eilber
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Total Femur Replacement After Tumor Resection: Limb Salvage Usually Achieved But Complications and Failures are Common.

Authors:  Florian Sevelda; Reinhard Schuh; Jochen Gerhard Hofstaetter; Martina Schinhan; Reinhard Windhager; Philipp Theodor Funovics
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Etiology and results of tumor endoprosthesis revision surgery in 64 patients.

Authors:  P Z Wirganowicz; J J Eckardt; F J Dorey; F R Eilber; J M Kabo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 4.  Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review.

Authors:  Eric R Henderson; John S Groundland; Elisa Pala; Jeremy A Dennis; Rebecca Wooten; David Cheong; Reinhard Windhager; Rainer I Kotz; Mario Mercuri; Philipp T Funovics; Francis J Hornicek; H Thomas Temple; Pietro Ruggieri; G Douglas Letson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Aseptic failure: how does the Compress(®) implant compare to cemented stems?

Authors:  Andrew C Pedtke; Rosanna L Wustrack; Andrew S Fang; Robert J Grimer; Richard J O'Donnell
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  What are the functional outcomes of endoprosthestic reconstructions after tumor resection?

Authors:  Nicholas M Bernthal; Marcia Greenberg; Kent Heberer; Jeffrey J Eckardt; Eileen G Fowler
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Prosthetic survival and clinical results with use of large-segment replacements in the treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas.

Authors:  M M Malawer; L B Chou
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Endoprosthetic replacement for stage IIB osteosarcoma.

Authors:  J J Eckardt; F R Eilber; G Rosen; J M Mirra; F J Dorey; W G Ward; J M Kabo
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Validation of a functional evaluation system in patients with musculoskeletal tumors.

Authors:  Sang Hoon Lee; Dong Joon Kim; Joo Han Oh; Hyuk Soo Han; Kwang Hyun Yoo; Han Soo Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Cemented distal femoral endoprostheses for musculoskeletal tumor: improved survival of modular versus custom implants.

Authors:  Adam J Schwartz; J Michael Kabo; Fritz C Eilber; Frederick R Eilber; Jeffrey J Eckardt
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  1 in total

1.  Cement-in-cement revision with the Exeter Short Revision Stem: A review of 50 consecutive hips.

Authors:  Andrew J Berg; Antonia Hoyle; Edward Yates; Aslam Chougle; Rama Mohan
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-04-09
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.