BACKGROUND: Adequate reconstruction of the soft tissue defect following resection of bone tumors is challenging. Prolene mesh, despite being a useful tool, is not widely used due to the fear of deep infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome and complications of using a Prolene mesh in oncological reconstructions. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in bone tumor patients with soft tissue reconstruction using Prolene mesh between January 2017 and June 2019. Functional evaluation was done using MSTS 93 score. Complications were recorded and were classified as mechanical (dislocation and extension lag) or biological failure (wound problems and deep infection). Comparison was performed between groups with and without biological failure to identify predictive variables. RESULTS: Of 116 patients, 68 were males and 48 were females, with median age of 22.5 years. Thirty nine patients had tumors of proximal tibia, 23 of proximal femur, 25 of proximal humerus, 24 of pelvis, and five tumors at other sites. Approximately two-thirds (62.9%) of our patients underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction while the rest underwent either biological or cement spacer reconstructions. Excellent or good functional outcomes were reported in 98.3% patients as per MSTS 93 scoring. Complications were noted in 22 patients (18.9%), of which 16 had biological failure, with four patients requiring debridement and mesh removal. Dislocation of prosthesis occurred in 2 patients of proximal femur replacement. Overall re-surgery rate was 5.1% (6 patients). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with or without biological failure with respect to demographics, site of tumor, type of procedure, blood loss, duration of surgery and history of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Prolene mesh is a useful tool to reconstruct the soft tissue defects following bone tumor resections. It is readily available, reliable and provides reproducible results, with no added risk of wound complications.
BACKGROUND: Adequate reconstruction of the soft tissue defect following resection of bone tumors is challenging. Prolene mesh, despite being a useful tool, is not widely used due to the fear of deep infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome and complications of using a Prolene mesh in oncological reconstructions. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in bone tumor patients with soft tissue reconstruction using Prolene mesh between January 2017 and June 2019. Functional evaluation was done using MSTS 93 score. Complications were recorded and were classified as mechanical (dislocation and extension lag) or biological failure (wound problems and deep infection). Comparison was performed between groups with and without biological failure to identify predictive variables. RESULTS: Of 116 patients, 68 were males and 48 were females, with median age of 22.5 years. Thirty nine patients had tumors of proximal tibia, 23 of proximal femur, 25 of proximal humerus, 24 of pelvis, and five tumors at other sites. Approximately two-thirds (62.9%) of our patients underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction while the rest underwent either biological or cement spacer reconstructions. Excellent or good functional outcomes were reported in 98.3% patients as per MSTS 93 scoring. Complications were noted in 22 patients (18.9%), of which 16 had biological failure, with four patients requiring debridement and mesh removal. Dislocation of prosthesis occurred in 2 patients of proximal femur replacement. Overall re-surgery rate was 5.1% (6 patients). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with or without biological failure with respect to demographics, site of tumor, type of procedure, blood loss, duration of surgery and history of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Prolene mesh is a useful tool to reconstruct the soft tissue defects following bone tumor resections. It is readily available, reliable and provides reproducible results, with no added risk of wound complications.
Authors: E R Henderson; M I O'Connor; P Ruggieri; R Windhager; P T Funovics; C L Gibbons; W Guo; F J Hornicek; H T Temple; G D Letson Journal: Bone Joint J Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 5.082