| Literature DB >> 29720212 |
Bas C J Majoor1, Andreas Leithner2, Michiel A J van de Sande3, Natasha M Appelman-Dijkstra4, Neveen A T Hamdy4, P D Sander Dijkstra3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fibrous dysplasia of the proximal femur presents with heterogeneous clinical manifestations dictating different surgical approaches. However, to date there are no clear recommendations to guide the choice of surgical approach and no general guidelines for the optimal orthopedic management of these lesions. The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment outcomes of angled blade plates and intramedullary nails, using as outcome indicators revision-free survival, pain, function and femoral neck-shaft-angle. Based on a review of published literature and our study findings, we propose a treatment algorithm, taking into account different factors, which may play a role in the selection of one surgical approach over another.Entities:
Keywords: Blade plate; Fibrous dysplasia; Intramedullary nail; McCune-Albright syndrome; Proximal femur
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29720212 PMCID: PMC5932767 DOI: 10.1186/s13023-018-0805-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis ISSN: 1750-1172 Impact factor: 4.123
Cohort Characteristics
| LUMC | MUG | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 17 | 15 | 32 |
| Male:Female | 9:8 | 9:6 | 18:14 |
| Median age at diagnosis (years (range)) | 9 (3–42) | 23 (0–51) | 12 (0–51) |
| Type of fibrous dysplasia | |||
| Monostotic | 3 | 12 | 15 |
| Polyostotic | 10 | 2 | 12 |
| McCune-Albright | 4 | 1 | 5 |
| Type of surgery | |||
| Angled Blade Plate | 16 | 11 | 28 |
| Intramedullary nail | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Median age at surgery (years (range)) | 19 (11–67) | 23 (6–51) | 20 (6–67) |
| Preoperative fracture | 77% | 13% | 47% |
| Characteristics of surgery | |||
| Osteotomy | 35% | 13% | 25% |
| Custom made | 53% | 0% | 28% |
| Additional cancellous bone grafting | 18% | 53% | 34% |
| Additional cortical strut grafting | 53% | 0% | 28% |
| Median follow up after surgery (years) | 4.1 (1–31) | 4.7 (1–18) | 4.1 (1–31) |
Individual patient characteristics
| Patient ID | Gender/Age at Surgery | Type of fibrous dysplasiaa | Prior surgery of the proximal femur | Indication for Surgery | Type of implantb | Osteotomy | Cancellous bone grafting | Cortical bone grafting | Follow-up in years | Failure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M/16 | MAS | TEN Nails | Deformity | Custom made ABP | Yes | No | No | 1,4 | No |
| 2 | M/17 | MAS | TEN Nails | Fracture | Custom made ABP | No | No | Yes | 1,3 | No |
| 3 | F/67 | PFD | Fibular graft | Fracture | Custom made ABP | No | No | No | 1,8 | No |
| 4 | F/58 | MAS | – | Fracture | Custom made ABP | No | No | Yes | 2,0 | No |
| 5 | M/12 | PFD | Fibular graft, TEN Nails, external fixture | Fracture | Custom made ABP | No | No | No | 4,1 | No |
| 6 | M/29 | PFD | Fibular graft (2×) | Pain | Custom made ABP | No | No | Yes | 3,8 | No |
| 7 | M/20 | PFD | CBG, Plate osteosynthesis | Deformity | ABP | Yes | No | No | 6,7 | Yes |
| 8 | F/45 | PFD | Fibular graft | Pain | Custom made ABP | No | Yes | No | 4,1 | No |
| 9 | F/19 | MFD | Fibular graft | Fracture | ABP | No | No | No | 4,7 | No |
| 10 | F/18 | PFD | Fibular graft (3×) | Deformity | ABP | Yes | Yes | Yes | 9,4 | No |
| 11 | M/16 | MFD | – | Deformity | ABP | Yes | No | Yes | 14,8 | No |
| 12 | M/14 | PFD | – | Deformity | ABP | Yes | No | Yes | 17,3 | Yes |
| 13 | M/11 | PFD | – | Deformity | ABP | Yes | No | Yes | 31,1 | No |
| 14 | F/26 | MFD | – | Fracture | ABP | No | Yes | Yes | 1,8 | No |
| 15 | F/40 | MAS | Plate osteosynthesis, Fibular graft | Fracture | Custom made ABP | No | No | Yes | 4,3 | No |
| 16 | M/14 | PFD | – | Fracture | ABP | No | No | No | 1,0 | No |
| 17 | F/30 | PFD | Fibular graft | Pain | Custom made IMN | No | No | No | 1,1 | No |
| 18 | M/16 | MFD | TEN Nails | Impending fracture | IMN | No | No | No | 1,0 | No |
| 19 | F/15 | MFD | TEN Nails | Deformity | IMN | Yes | Yes | No | 1,1 | No |
| 20 | M/15 | MAS | – | Deformity | IMN | Yes | No | No | 1,4 | No |
| 21 | M/51 | MFD | – | Pain | ABP | No | No | No | 7,4 | No |
| 22 | F/21 | MFD | – | Pain | ABP | No | Yes | No | 7,8 | Removal (irritation) |
| 23 | M/43 | MFD | – | Impending fracture | ABP | No | Yes | No | 3,6 | Removal (irritation) |
| 24 | F/50 | MFD | – | Impending fracture | ABP | No | No | No | 4,0 | Removal (irritation) |
| 25 | M/33 | MFD | – | Pain | ABP | No | No | No | 2,2 | Removal (irritation) |
| 26 | F/29 | MFD | – | Impending fracture | ABP | No | No | No | 10,1 | No |
| 27 | M23 | PFD | – | Pain | ABP | No | Yes | No | 15,9 | No |
| 28 | M23 | MFD | – | Pain | ABP | No | Yes | No | 3,3 | No |
| 29 | M14 | MFD | – | Fracture | ABP | No | Yes | No | 9,3 | Removal (irritation) |
| 30 | F/46 | MFD | – | Impending fracture | ABP | No | Yes | No | 4,7 | Removal (irritation) |
| 31 | F/6 | MFD | – | Impending fracture | ABP | No | Yes | No | 17,7 | Removal (irritation) |
| 32 | M/13 | PFD | Nancy Nails | Impending fracture | IMN | No | No | No | 16,4 | No |
aMAS McCune-Albright Syndrome, PFD Polyostotic Fibrous Dysplasia, MFD Monostotic Fibrous Dysplasia
bABP Angled blade plate, IMN Intramedullary nail
Fig. 1Structural failure after angled blade plate endoprosthesis. The first patient that needed revision surgery (ID 7) was a male with shepherd’s crook deformity of the femur and was previously treated elsewhere for a pathological femoral fracture by means of a valgus osteotomy combined with a short angled blade plate (Fig. 1). The coxa vara persisted however (FNSA 67°), associated with severe pain complaints for which he was referred to the LUMC, 8 years after his first surgery. A subtrochanteric osteotomy was performed and fixation was undertaken using a larger blade plate and a temporary external fixator, which resulted in improvement of the coxa vara (FNSA 97°) and good functional outcome. Pain was adequately controlled with additional bisphosphonate therapy. Four years later the patient unfortunately sustained a fracture of the femoral diaphysis, distal to the angled blade plate. This part of the femur was also affected with fibrous dysplasia and together with the stress riser of the distal angled blade plate formed a weak location in the femur, prone to fracturing. The angled blade plate was removed and a longer angled blade plate was inserted to cover the whole area of the affected femur. This procedure was followed by a good functional outcome and disappearance of pain symptoms lasting to the end of follow up
Fig. 2The second patient who needed revision surgery (ID 12) was a male with a fracture through a fibrous dysplasia lesion of the proximal femur who was treated with a correction osteotomy and fixation with an angled blade plate in combination with a allogeneic strut graft at the age of fourteen (Fig. 2). He unfortunately sustained a stress fracture distal to the blade plate, 3 years after the initial surgery. The angled blade plate was removed during revision surgery and a long femoral plate was used to stabilize the femoral shaft. The patient was able to walk with crutches and had no more pain complaints. However, his severe coxa vara (FNSA 69°) remained unchanged
Overview of the literature on surgical treatment of fibrous dysplasia of the proximal femur
| Type of Surgery | Author/Year |
| Type of Surgery | Mean Follow-up | Failure | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grafts | Harris et al. (1962) [ | 10 | Cancellous Autograft | Unknown | 5/10 | Poor in 50% |
| Nakashima et al. (1984) [ | 8 | Autograft (unknown origin) | Unknown | 2/8 | Poor in 25% | |
| Enneking er al. (1986) [ | 15 | Cortical Autograft | 6 years | 2/15 | Poor in 2out of 15 (revision surgery) | |
| Stephenson et al. (1987) [ | 18 | Cancellous Autograft | 10.4 years | 25/31 | Poor in 81% | |
| Guille et al. (1998) [ | 22 | Cancellous Autograft | 15 years | 22/22 | Resorption of graft in 100% | |
| Ippolito et al. (2003) [ | 5 | Cancellous Autograft* | Unknown | 3/5 | Poor in 60% (revision surgery) | |
| George et al. (2008) [ | 8 | Cortical Autografts | 4.1 years | 1/8 | Poor in 12.5% (recurrence). | |
| Tong et al. (2013) [ | 13 | Cancellous Autograft with internal fixation | 12–32 months | 0/13 | No patients required revision surgery | |
| Kushare et al. (2014) [ | 8 | Various Grafts | 3 years | Unknown | Unclear | |
| Nishida et al. (2015) [ | 8 | Cortical Autograft with compression hip screw | 75 months | 0/8 | No patient had poor outcome | |
| Leet et al. (2016) [ | 46 | Various Grafts | 19.6 years | 39/52 | KM-survival: 50% survival at 14.5 years | |
| Majoor et al. (2016) [ | 28 | Cortical Allograft | 13 years | 13/28 | Good outcome in patients without a preoperative fracture and adequate proximal anchoring | |
| Intramedullary Nail | Harris et al. (1962) [ | 3 | Single intramedullary rod | Unknown | 1/3 | The only patient with fibrous dysplasia of the collum developed a severe varus deformity |
| Freeman et al. (1987) [ | 6 | Multiple osteotomies with a Zickel Nail | 34.5 months | 2/6 | Two patients needed revision surgery. | |
| Keijser et al. (2001) [ | 5 | Intramedullary nails, additional multiple osteotomies in one patient | 19.4 years | 3/5 | Three patients needed at least one revision surgery after the first IMN. | |
| O’Sullivan et al. (2002) [ | 10 | Bilateral osteotomies and Sheffield rods | 18 months | 3/10 | Three femurs needed revision surgery. 4/5 patients had a bad functional outcome due to severe coxa vara. | |
| Ippolito et al. (2003) [ | 19 | Interlocking cephalomedullary nails | Unknown | 0/19 | All patients had a good outcome with no worsening of deformities | |
| Jung et al. (2006) [ | 7 | Multiple osteotomies with intramedullary nails | 30 months | 0/7 | No patients needed a revision surgery and good functional outcome in all patients | |
| Yang et al. (2010) [ | 14 | Valgus osteotomy with intramedullary nails | 75.3 months | 0/14 | No patient needed revision surgery | |
| Zhang et al. (2012) [ | 28 | IMN, additional osteotomy in 8 patients | 50 months | 0/28 | No patients needed revision surgery. Good functional outcome in the majority | |
| Kushare et al. (2014) [ | 16 | Intramedullary nails | 3 years | 1/16 | One patient required further surgery and 5 had pain at last follow-up | |
| Ippolito et al. (2015) [ | 11 | Two stage coxa vara correction and definitive fixation with an interlocking nail | 4.7 years | 4/11 | Four patients had complications after the first surgery and another four needed further surgery after the second implant. | |
| Benedetti Valentini et al. (2015) [ | 8 | Customized adult humeral nail in children (4–7 years) | 2.9 years | 3/8 | Three patients required revision surgery as an adult. One patient required distal screw removal and acquired nail breakage | |
| Present study | 5 | Intramedullary nails, one of which was customized | 4.1 years | 0/5 | All patients had a good outcome with no worsening of deformities | |
| Angled Blade Plate | Ippolito et al. (2003) [ | 2 | Angled blade plates after valgus osteotomy | 4.5 years | 1/2 | One failed due to cutting out of the plate. The other ABP had a good outcome. |
| Leet et al. (2016) [ | 2 | Angled Blade Plates | Unknown | Unknown | Outcome of ABP not described | |
| Ippolito et al. (2015) [ | 8 | Angled Blade Plates | Unknown | 1/8 | One patient had screw loosening with lateralization of the plate | |
| Present study | 28 | Angled Blade Plates, 8 of which were customized | 4.1 years | 2/28 | Two failures, in 7 patients ABP removed due to complaints of the iliotibial tract | |
| Dynamic/Compression Hip Screw | Li et al. (2013) [ | 21 | Valgus osteotomy with DHS fixation | 19–128 months | 2/21 | One patient revision surgery with an intramedullary nail after a fracture and one had a loose lag screw. |
| Tong et al. (2013) [ | 2 | Valgus osteotomy with DHS fixation | 12–32 months | 0/2 | No patient needed revision surgery | |
| Nishida et al. (2015) [ | 8 | Cortical Autograft with compression hip screw | 75 months | 0/8 | No patient needed revision surgery |
Fig. 3Customized intramedullary nail. A customized intramedullary nail with a HA-coated proximal screw was used in one patient (ID 18), in order to ensure ingrowth in the femoral neck. The nail had an enlarged diameter because this particular patient had severe cortical thinning throughout the length of the femur, providing insufficient structural support for a standard sized intramedullary nail
Fig. 4Proposed individualized, patient-tailored algorithm for the surgical management of fibrous dysplasia of the proximal femur