| Literature DB >> 31948458 |
Changye Zou1,2, Zhiqiang Zhao1, Tiao Lin1, Yongfu Huang1, Xianbiao Xie1, Junqiang Yin1, Gang Huang1, Bo Wang3, Jingnan Shen4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limb salvage for bone sarcoma around the knee in skeletally immature children is challenging because of interference on two critical growth plates in the lower limb. This retrospective study aims to evaluate long-term outcomes and influence on growth of the lower limb of the cemented extendible endoprostheses.Entities:
Keywords: Aseptic loosening; Limb length discrepancy; Osteogenic sarcoma; Prosthesis survival
Year: 2020 PMID: 31948458 PMCID: PMC6966891 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1534-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
summary data of the patients
| General information | Number | Percentage | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| For all patients (45) | Age (years) | ≦10 | 23 | 51.1% |
| >10 | 22 | 48.9% | ||
| Gender | Female | 19 | 42.2% | |
| Male | 26 | 57.8% | ||
| Location | Femur | 35 | 77.8% | |
| Tibia | 10 | 22.2% | ||
| Tumor size | ≦8cm | 10 | 22.2 | |
| >8cm | 35 | 77.8 | ||
| Pathology | Osteosarcoma | 44 | 97.8% | |
| Ewing sarcoma | 1 | 2.2% | ||
| Metastasis | Yes | 15 | 33.3% | |
| No | 30 | 66.7% | ||
| Survival | DOD | 12 | 26.7% | |
| AWD | 3 | 6.7% | ||
| AW/OD | 30 | 66.7% | ||
| For survived patients (33) | Limb salvage | Yes | 31 | 93.9% |
| No | 2 | 6.1% | ||
| Prosthesis survival | Yes | 21 | 63.6% | |
| No | 12 | 36.4% | ||
| prosthesis extension | Yes | 22 | 66.70% | |
| No | 11 | 33.3% | ||
| LLD | ≦2cm | 20 | 60.6% | |
| >2cm | 13 | 39.4% | ||
DOD dead of disease, AWD alive with disease, AW/OD alive without disease
Fig. 1Diagram showing the structure and extension mechanism of the prothesis for patients with the lower limb osteosarcoma. a The prothesis used in patients with osteosarcoma in proximal tibia; only partial cartilage and cortex of the distal femur were resected to implant the femoral joint surface and shaft. b The prothesis used in patients with osteosarcoma in distal femur. c The prosthesis was lengthened by rotating the ring, and the extension of the prosthesis was further secured by inserting two hemicyclic collars between the extension space
Fig. 2Diagram showing the growth of epiphysis of contralateral healthy proximal tibia and distal femur at different time points after operation. A 12 months. B 24 months. C 48 months in a male patient. a, arrest line; e, epiphysis line. The distance between a and e lines is the growth of the epiphysis after operation
Fig. 3The Kaplan-Meier curve of the overall survival (a), the disease-free survival (b), and the prosthesis survival (c) of the patients
Fig. 4The influence of the passive implant insertion on the growth of the affected tibia compared to the contralateral normal one. a The mean length ratio of the affected tibia/control normal tibia. b The length discrepancies of the affected tibia compared to the normal one. c The ratio of the growth of both distal tibia epiphysis to the whole length of normal tibia. d The ratio of the growth of normal proximal tibia epiphysis to the whole length of normal tibia
Fig. 5The lengthening and revision of a 9-year-old girl with osteosarcoma in the left distal femur. a X-ray indicates osteosarcoma in the left distal femur. b The patient underwent tumor resection and implantation of extendible prosthesis. c Prosthesis displacement and out of length after extension of 4 cm in 2 years. d The revision operation was performed, and a new prosthesis with longer and thicker stem was implanted. f The LLDs were less than 1 cm after another 2 cm extension
Fig. 6Revision of a patient with periprosthesis infection (a–c) and a patient with loosening of prosthesis (d–f). An abscess was observed 4 months after the operation as indicated by the arrow (a). Surgical debridement was performed to remove the infected prosthesis, and bone cement spacer containing antibiotics was implanted (b). The bone cement spacer was replaced by the prosthesis when there were no signs of infection (c). An extension prosthesis was applied for a boy with osteosarcoma in the left femur (d). The prosthesis was loosening 1 year after the operation (e). A new prosthesis with plate and screw was used to replace the loose one (f)