Literature DB >> 33517739

Interlocking reconstruction-mode stem-sideplates preserve at-risk hips with short residual proximal femora.

Alexander B Christ1, Tomohiro Fujiwara1, Mohamed A Yakoub1, John H Healey1,2.   

Abstract

AIMS: We have evaluated the survivorship, outcomes, and failures of an interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate implant used to preserve the native hip joint and achieve proximal fixation when there is little residual femur during large endoprosthetic reconstruction of the distal femur.
METHODS: A total of 14 patients underwent primary or revision reconstruction of a large femoral defect with a short remaining proximal femur using an interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate for fixation after oncological distal femoral and diaphyseal resections. The implant was attached to a standard endoprosthetic reconstruction system. The implant was attached to a standard endoprosthetic reconstruction system. None of the femoral revisions were amenable to standard cemented or uncemented stem fixation. Patient and disease characteristics, surgical history, final ambulatory status, and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score were recorded. The percentage of proximal femur remaining was calculated from follow-up radiographs.
RESULTS: All 14 at-risk native hip joints were preserved at a mean final follow-up of 6.0 years (SD 3.7), despite a short residual femur, often after proximal osteotomies through the lesser trochanter. Overall, 13 of 14 stems had long-term successful fixation. Eight patients required no reoperation. Three patients required reoperation due to implant-related issues, and three patients required reoperation for wound healing problems or infection. There were no dislocations or fractures. At final follow-up the mean MSTS score was 24.9 (SD 4.1). Nine patients required no ambulation aids, and only one had a Trendelenburg gait.
CONCLUSION: This interlocking, reconstruction-mode stem-sideplate reliably preserves native hip joint anatomy and function after large femoral resection with a short remaining proximal femur, both in the primary and revision setting. This is particularly important for preventing or delaying total femoral arthroplasty in young patients after oncological reconstruction. Hip abductor strength and function could be maintained by this method, and the risk of dislocation eliminated. The success of this technique in this modest series should be verified in a larger collaborative study and will be of interest to revision surgeons and oncologists. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):398-404.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Custom implant; Distal femoral arthroplasty; Megaprosthesis; Reconstruction screw fixation; Stem-sideplate; Total femoral arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33517739      PMCID: PMC7926295          DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B2.BJJ-2020-0654.R1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  42 in total

1.  Cortical strut bone grafting and long-stem endoprosthetic reconstruction following massive bone tumour resection in the lower limb.

Authors:  H Qu; W Guo; R Yang; X Tang; T Yan; D Li; Y Yang; J Zang
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 5.082

2.  Mechanisms of failure and survival of total femoral endoprosthetic replacements.

Authors:  M R Medellin; T Fujiwara; R Clark; J D Stevenson; M Parry; L Jeys
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 5.082

Review 3.  Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review.

Authors:  Eric R Henderson; John S Groundland; Elisa Pala; Jeremy A Dennis; Rebecca Wooten; David Cheong; Reinhard Windhager; Rainer I Kotz; Mario Mercuri; Philipp T Funovics; Francis J Hornicek; H Thomas Temple; Pietro Ruggieri; G Douglas Letson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Non-oncologic total femoral arthroplasty: retrospective review.

Authors:  Derek F Amanatullah; Robert T Trousdale; Arlen D Hanssen; David G Lewallen; Michael J Taunton
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2014-05-24       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  The History of Bone Tumour Treatment and the State of the Art in Vienna.

Authors:  Rainer Kotz
Journal:  Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki)       Date:  2017-12-01

6.  Proximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions.

Authors:  Javad Parvizi; T David Tarity; Nicholas Slenker; Frazier Wade; Rachel Trappler; William J Hozack; Franklin H Sim
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Algorithm for the surgical treatment of malignant lesions of the proximal tibia.

Authors:  D G Jeon; A Kawai; P Boland; J H Healey
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Total femoral endoprosthetic replacement following excision of bone tumours.

Authors:  M D Sewell; B G I Spiegelberg; S A Hanna; W J S Aston; W Bartlett; G W Blunn; L A David; S R Cannon; T W R Briggs
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-11

9.  A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system.

Authors:  W F Enneking; W Dunham; M C Gebhardt; M Malawar; D J Pritchard
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Short-stem reconstruction for megaendoprostheses in case of an ultrashort proximal femur.

Authors:  Ralf Dieckmann; Marcel-Philipp Henrichs; Georg Gosheger; Steffen Höll; Jendrik Hardes; Arne Streitbürger
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-05-31       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  1 in total

1.  Distal femoral replacement - Cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature.

Authors:  Alexander B Christ; Francis J Hornicek; Nicola Fabbri
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-05-08
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.