| Literature DB >> 30285683 |
Mattia Morri1, Cristiana Forni2, Riccardo Ruisi2, Tiziana Giamboi2, Fabrizio Giacomella2, Davide Maria Donati3, Maria Grazia Benedetti4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to describe the rehabilitative pathway of patients undergoing endoprosthetic knee replacement surgery, build reference values of the functional results achieved, and identify possible prognostic factors.Entities:
Keywords: Bone tumors; Patient outcome assessment; Rehabilitation
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30285683 PMCID: PMC6169060 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-018-2280-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Exercises for patients with endoprosthetic knee replacement
Patient characteristics, variables and functional results
| Patient characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Median Age, years (min-max) | 19 (9–66) |
| Female, n. (%) | 10 (33.3) |
| Morphology, n. (%) | |
| Osteosarcoma | 25 (83.3) |
| Ewing | 5 (16.7) |
| Site of the tumor, n. (%) | |
| Femur | 19 (63.3) |
| Tibia | 11 (36.7) |
| Median resection of bone length, cm (min-max) | 14.5 (11–30) |
| Median number of chemotherapy cycles, (min-max) | 10.5 (5–15) |
| Complications, n (%) | 9 (30%) |
| Infections | 5 |
| Mechanical failures | 2 |
| Intervention for pulmonary metastases | 1 |
| Chemo side effects | 1 |
Fig. 2Enrolment process
Fig. 3Description of patient recovery
Comparison of the results obtained between different studies
| Authors (year) | N | Surgery | Follow-up (yr) | Flex (°) | Strength (0–5) | TESS (%) | TUG (sec) | 6mWT (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ginsberg, 2007 [ | 41 | Limb sparing femur | 4.29 (2.98) | 86.4 (9.9) | 6.6 (2.1) | |||
| 24 | Limb sparing tibia | 88.1 (9.3) | 6.0 (1.2) | |||||
| Henderson, 2012 [ | 12 | Distal femur | 4 (2–12) | 98 (36) | ||||
| 3 | Proximal tibia | 105 (18) | ||||||
| Carty, 2009 [ | 20 | Limb salvage | 7.5 (5.1) | 125 (80–140) | 4.15 (2–5) | 86 (3.5) | ||
| Bekkering, 2011 [ | 15 | Knee endoprosthesis | 2.3 (1.5) | 7.2 (1.6) | 471 (75) | |||
| Bekkering, 2012 [ | 4 | Limb salvage and ablative | 1 | 85 (2.4) | 430 (18) | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multiple sub-group comparisons of the outcomes evaluated at 12 months
| Variables | N | Flex ° | Strenght | TESS | 6mWT | TUG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ≤18y | 9 | 110 (58) | 3.4 (2.3) | 87.5 (15.3) | 450 (34) | 7.5 (2.0) |
| >18y | 13 | 100 (28) | 4 (1) | 81.4 (12) | 451 (108) | 7.0 (1.8) | |
| Sex | Men | 17 | 110 (35) | 4 (2) | 83.6 (13.6) | 450 (55) | 7.4 (1.8) |
| Women | 5 | 90 (48) | 4.5 (1.5) | 87.5 (16.1) | 468 (115) | 6.9 (3.4) | |
| Diagnosis | Osteosarcoma | 18 | 110 (29) | 3.75 (2) | 85 (12.6) | 449 (64) | 7.5 (1.8) |
| Ewing | 4 | 112.5 (64) | 4.5 (0.8) | 85.3 (17.0) | 459.5 (57) | 6.3 (1.1) | |
| Resection level | Femur | 15 | 110 (40) | 4 (1.5) | 83.6 (13.1) | 470 (80) | 7.2 (1.9) |
| Tibia | 7 | 90 (40) | 3.2 (1.5) | 84.9 (14.1) | 449 (25) | 7.0 (1.6) | |
| Resection amplitude | ≤20 cm | 16 | 105 (38) | 4.5 (1) | 91.9 (33.2) | 449 (70) | 7.3 (1.9) |
| > 20 cm | 6 | 115 (43) | 3.5 (1.9) | 82.7 (9.5) | 469 (84) | 6.8 (2.6) | |