| Literature DB >> 29370790 |
Grzegorz Guzik1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metastatic lesions to the proximal femur occur frequently (about 10% of patients with cancer) and require surgical treatment. There are many surgical methods of treatment, however, use of the tumor modular endoprostheses seems to be particularly promising. The aim of study was to evaluate oncological and functional results of treatment in patients with proximal femur metastases. Oncological results were evaluated considering the survival of patients and the number of local recurrences. Functional results were assessed as pain intensity in VAS score and performance in Karnofsky and MSTS score.Entities:
Keywords: Bone metastasis; Modular endoprostheses; Proximal femur; Tumors resections
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29370790 PMCID: PMC5784608 DOI: 10.1186/s12893-018-0336-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Surg ISSN: 1471-2482 Impact factor: 2.102
Cancer characteristics and applied treatment N = 122
| Cancer | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Breast cancer | 48 (40) |
| Myeloma | 24 (20) |
| Kidney cancer | 19 (16) |
| Colon cancer | 3(2) |
| Thyroid cancer | 4 (3) |
| Lung cancer | 5 (4) |
| Prostate cancer | 3 (2) |
| Unknown | 16 (13) |
| Treatment | |
| Megaprosthesis | 75 (61) |
| Standard Prosthesis | 21 (17) |
| Gamma nail | 20 (17) |
| DHS | 6 (5) |
Results are presented as a number with a percentage
Fig. 1Survival In patients after different methods of surgery
Mean results of MSTS and Karnofsky performance score in patients before and after the surgery, in different treatment method
| Treatment options | MSTS score | Karnofsky score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | |
| A) Megaprosthesis | 6.4 ± 0.4 | 19.8 ± 0.6* | 53 ± 7 | 67 ± 9* |
| B) Standard prosthesis | 8.8 ± 1.2 | 22.4 ± 0.6* | 55 ± 9 | 70 ± 4* |
| C) Gamma Nail and DHS | 10.8 ± 0.8 | 18.2 ± 1.0* | 50 ± 10 | 55 ± 7 |
| Significant differences intergroup | NS | Gr. C > A/B* | NS | Gr. C > A/B* |
Results are presented as a mean ± standard deviation
*p < 0.05
Mean results of VAS score in patients before and after the surgery, in different treatment method
| Treatment options | VAS score | VAS score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | After intervention | ||
| A) Megaprosthesis | 6.8 ± 0.5 | 3.4 ± 0.8* | |
| B) Standard prosthesis | 4.9 ± 1.1 | 2.8 ± 0.6* | |
| C) Gamma Nail and DHS | 6.9 ± 0.7 | 5.1 ± 1.0* | |
| Significant differences intergroup | NS | Gr. C > A/B* | |
Results are presented as a mean ± standard deviation
*p < 0.05
Fig. 2Preoperative and postoperative radiograms series. a Proximal femur breast cancer metastasis, b radiogram after tumour resection and modular prosthesis implantation. c Proximal femur prostate cancer metastasis and fracture after stabilisation with use of gamma nail. Fail of fixation - gamma nail was broken, d after proximal femur resection and modular prosthesis implantation. e Proximal femur renal cancer metastasis, f local recurrence after tumor resection and endoprosthesis implantation, g radiogram after prosthesis removal
Functional status after 3 months follow up depending on treatment option
| Functional status | Treatment options | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Megaprosthesis | Standard prosthesis | Gamma Nail / DHS | |
| Walking without crutches | 23 | 18 | 0* |
| Walking with 1 crutch | 41 | 3 | 0* |
| Walking with 2 crutches | 7 | 0 | 20* |
| Use of a walking frame | 4 | 0 | 6* |
Results are presented as a number with a percentage
*p < 0.05 χ2