Literature DB >> 34334040

Long-term competing risks for overall and cause-specific failure of rotating-hinge distal femoral arthroplasty for tumour reconstruction.

Koichi Ogura1, Tomohiro Fujiwara1, Carol D Morris2, Patrick J Boland1, John H Healey1.   

Abstract

AIMS: Rotating-hinge knee prostheses are commonly used to reconstruct the distal femur after resection of a tumour, despite the projected long-term burden of reoperation due to complications. Few studies have examined the factors that influence their failure and none, to our knowledge, have used competing risk models to do so. The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors for failure of a rotating-hinge knee distal femoral arthroplasty using the Fine-Gray competing risk model.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 209 consecutive patients who, between 1991 and 2016, had undergone resection of the distal femur for tumour and reconstruction using a rotating-hinge knee prosthesis. The study endpoint was failure of the prosthesis, defined as removal of the femoral component, the tibial component, or the bone-implant fixation; major revision (exchange of the femoral component, tibial component, or the bone-implant fixation); or amputation.
RESULTS: Multivariate Fine-Gray regression analyses revealed different hazards for each Henderson failure mode: percentage of femoral resection (p = 0.001) and extent of quadriceps muscle resection (p = 0.005) for overall prosthetic failure; extent of quadriceps muscle resection (p = 0.002) and fixation of femoral component (p = 0.011) for type 2 failure (aseptic loosening); age (p = 0.009) and percentage of femoral resection (p = 0.019) for type 3 failure (mechanical failure); and type of joint resection (p = 0.037) for type 4 (infection) were independent predictors. A bone stem ratio of > 2.5 reliably predicted aseptic loosening.
CONCLUSION: We identified independent risk factors for overall and cause-specific prosthetic failure after rotating-hinge knee distal femoral arthroplasty using a competing risk Fine-Gray model. A bone stem ratio > 2.5 reliably predicts aseptic loosening. An accurate knowledge of the risks of distal femoral arthroplasty after resection for tumour assists surgical planning and managing patient expectations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1405-1413.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Competing risk model; Distal femoral replacement; Fine-Gray model; Prosthetic failure; Risk factors

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34334040      PMCID: PMC9380868          DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B8.BJJ-2020-2323.R1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.385


  27 in total

1.  Prospective identification of risk factors for wound infection after lower extremity oncologic surgery.

Authors:  Carol D Morris; Kent Sepkowitz; Claudette Fonshell; Neil Margetson; Janet Eagan; Jeremy Miransky; Patrick J Boland; John Healey
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Endoprosthetic replacement of the distal femur for bone tumours: long-term results.

Authors:  G J C Myers; A T Abudu; S R Carter; R M Tillman; R J Grimer
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2007-04

3.  Prosthetic knee replacement after resection of a malignant tumor of the distal part of the femur. Medium to long-term results.

Authors:  A Kawai; G F Muschler; J M Lane; J C Otis; J H Healey
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Distal femur reconstruction with modular tumour prostheses: a single Institution analysis of implant survival comparing fixed versus rotating hinge knee prostheses.

Authors:  Elisa Pala; Giulia Trovarelli; Andrea Angelini; Pietro Ruggieri
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-06-04       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Long-term survival of cemented distal femoral endoprostheses with a hydroxyapatite-coated collar: a histological study and a radiographic follow-up.

Authors:  Melanie Jean Coathup; Vineet Batta; Robin C Pollock; William J Aston; Stephen R Cannon; John A Skinner; Timothy W R Briggs; Paul S Unwin; Gordon William Blunn
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Aseptic loosening rates in distal femoral endoprostheses: does stem size matter?

Authors:  Patrick F Bergin; Jenna B Noveau; James S Jelinek; Robert M Henshaw
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Survival of tumor megaprostheses replacements about the knee.

Authors:  Hannah D Morgan; Amy M Cizik; Seth S Leopold; Douglas S Hawkins; Ernest U Conrad
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Results of knee replacement with the Walldius and geometric prostheses. A comparative study.

Authors:  F C Wilson; D M Fajgenbaum; G C Venters
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  A modular femur-tibia reconstruction system.

Authors:  R Kotz; P Ritschl; J Trachtenbrodt
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 1.390

10.  What Are the Long-term Results of MUTARS® Modular Endoprostheses for Reconstruction of Tumor Resection of the Distal Femur and Proximal Tibia?

Authors:  Michaël P A Bus; Michiel A J van de Sande; Marta Fiocco; Gerard R Schaap; Jos A M Bramer; P D Sander Dijkstra
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  2 in total

1.  Intercalary reconstruction of long bones by massive allograft: Comparison of construct stability ensured by three different host-graft junctions and two types of fixations in a synthetic femur model.

Authors:  Massimiliano Baleani; Paolo Erani; Manon Blaise; Roberta Fognani; Marco Palmas; Marco Manfrini
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 3.569

2.  High ten-year implant survivorship and low patellofemoral complication rate for S-ROM rotating-hinge implants in revision total knee arthroplasty : a single-centre study.

Authors:  Hosam E Matar; Benjamin V Bloch; Peter J James
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2022-03
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.