Marcel-Philipp Henrichs1, Dennis Liem2, Georg Gosheger2, Arne Streitbuerger3, Markus Nottrott2, Dimosthenis Andreou2, Jendrik Hardes3. 1. Department of Orthopedics and Tumor Orthopedics, Muenster University Hospital, Münster, Germany; Department of Orthopedics and Special Orthopedic Surgery, Paracelsus-Klinik Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany. Electronic address: mp.henrichs@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopedics and Tumor Orthopedics, Muenster University Hospital, Münster, Germany. 3. Department of Orthopedics and Tumor Orthopedics, Muenster University Hospital, Münster, Germany; Department of Musculoskeletal Surgical Oncology, Essen University Hospital, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The distal humerus is a rare location of bone tumors. Because of the complexity of the elbow joint, poor soft-tissue coverage, and proximity of nerves and vessels, resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction are demanding. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated the clinical results after distal humeral resection and megaprosthetic reconstruction in 12 patients with an average age of 46 years. All patient files were reviewed for clinical information, and postoperative function and patients' contentment were assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score. RESULTS: The predominant diagnoses were bone and soft-tissue sarcoma (n = 6), giant cell tumor (n = 2), and renal cell carcinoma metastasis (n = 2). Local recurrence was the reason for secondary amputation in all cases (n = 3). The prosthetic survival rate after surgery was 82% at 2 years and 64% at 5 years. Reconstruction failure was mainly caused by aseptic loosening of the humeral stem, occurring in 27% (n = 3), followed by aseptic loosening of the ulnar stem in 9% (n = 1) and periprosthetic infection in 9% (n = 1). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 24 points (range, 20-30 points). An extension lag of more than 10° was noted in 6 patients (55%). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that limb salvage with a distal humeral replacement can achieve good functional results in most patients, although the complication rate with special emphasis on the loosening rate of the humeral stem is high. However, limb salvage was not achieved in 27% of patients because of local recurrence.
BACKGROUND: The distal humerus is a rare location of bone tumors. Because of the complexity of the elbow joint, poor soft-tissue coverage, and proximity of nerves and vessels, resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction are demanding. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated the clinical results after distal humeral resection and megaprosthetic reconstruction in 12 patients with an average age of 46 years. All patient files were reviewed for clinical information, and postoperative function and patients' contentment were assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score. RESULTS: The predominant diagnoses were bone and soft-tissue sarcoma (n = 6), giant cell tumor (n = 2), and renal cell carcinoma metastasis (n = 2). Local recurrence was the reason for secondary amputation in all cases (n = 3). The prosthetic survival rate after surgery was 82% at 2 years and 64% at 5 years. Reconstruction failure was mainly caused by aseptic loosening of the humeral stem, occurring in 27% (n = 3), followed by aseptic loosening of the ulnar stem in 9% (n = 1) and periprosthetic infection in 9% (n = 1). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 24 points (range, 20-30 points). An extension lag of more than 10° was noted in 6 patients (55%). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that limb salvage with a distal humeral replacement can achieve good functional results in most patients, although the complication rate with special emphasis on the loosening rate of the humeral stem is high. However, limb salvage was not achieved in 27% of patients because of local recurrence.
Authors: Gopikanthan Manoharan; Robert W Jordan; Georgios Orfanos; Manikandar S Cheruvu; Paul Cool; Stuart M Hay Journal: Shoulder Elbow Date: 2021-05-20
Authors: W Guder; M Nottrott; A Streitbürger; J Röder; L-E Podleska; P Scheidt; M Dudda; J Hardes Journal: Orthopade Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 1.087
Authors: Christoph Theil; Jan Schwarze; Georg Gosheger; Burkhard Moellenbeck; Kristian Nikolaus Schneider; Niklas Deventer; Sebastian Klingebiel; George Grammatopoulos; Friedrich Boettner; Tom Schmidt-Braekling Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 6.639