Peng Liu1, Zhuan Wang1, Shiyuan Zhang1, Guoqiang Ding1, Ke Tan1, Ji Zhou2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chinese Academy of Sciences Sichuan Translational Medicine Research Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chinese Academy of Sciences Sichuan Translational Medicine Research Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. doctorzhouji@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to radical resection, endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) is more invasive and increases the risk of dislocation. Therefore, the suitability of EPR for elderly patients with metastatic tumor needs further investigation. METHODS: Seventy-one adult patients with isolated proximal femoral bone metastases who underwent EPR were retrospectively analyzed and stratified into two groups: elderly age group (≥60 years, n = 31) and younger age group (<60 years, n = 40). The effect of age on prognosis was analyzed to determine whether EPR is beneficial in elderly patients with proximal femoral metastatic tumor. Cox regression modeling was used to evaluate the effect of different factors on postoperative survival outcomes. RESULTS: Ten (32.26%) and 9 (22.50%) cases of perioperative complications were recorded in the elderly and younger age groups, respectively, with median survival times of 22.00 ± 4.61 months and 23.00 ± 2.85 months, respectively; a log-rank test showed that the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.657). A Cox regression model was established with patient age as the covariable to evaluate whether it affected postoperative survival. The risk of death due to age was not significant (p = 0.649), but malignancy and femoral metastasis type were significantly associated with postoperative survival (p = 0.001 and p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Although older patients have a slightly higher incidence of postoperative complications than younger patients, they do not experience severe adverse consequences. With rigorous selection and careful preparation, EPR is appropriate for the treatment of proximal femoral metastases in older patients, including those with Harrington type I-II acetabular invasion.
BACKGROUND: Due to radical resection, endoprosthetic reconstruction (EPR) is more invasive and increases the risk of dislocation. Therefore, the suitability of EPR for elderly patients with metastatic tumor needs further investigation. METHODS: Seventy-one adult patients with isolated proximal femoral bone metastases who underwent EPR were retrospectively analyzed and stratified into two groups: elderly age group (≥60 years, n = 31) and younger age group (<60 years, n = 40). The effect of age on prognosis was analyzed to determine whether EPR is beneficial in elderly patients with proximal femoral metastatic tumor. Cox regression modeling was used to evaluate the effect of different factors on postoperative survival outcomes. RESULTS: Ten (32.26%) and 9 (22.50%) cases of perioperative complications were recorded in the elderly and younger age groups, respectively, with median survival times of 22.00 ± 4.61 months and 23.00 ± 2.85 months, respectively; a log-rank test showed that the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.657). A Cox regression model was established with patient age as the covariable to evaluate whether it affected postoperative survival. The risk of death due to age was not significant (p = 0.649), but malignancy and femoral metastasis type were significantly associated with postoperative survival (p = 0.001 and p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Although older patients have a slightly higher incidence of postoperative complications than younger patients, they do not experience severe adverse consequences. With rigorous selection and careful preparation, EPR is appropriate for the treatment of proximal femoral metastases in older patients, including those with Harrington type I-II acetabular invasion.
Authors: Dinu Vermesan; Radu Prejbeanu; Horia Haragus; Alis Dema; Manuel D Oprea; Diana Andrei; Dan V Poenaru; Marius Niculescu Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Joel R Peterson; Alexander P Decilveo; Ian T O'Connor; Ivan Golub; James C Wittig Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Paul S Issack; Jordan Barker; Matthew Baker; Suhel Y Kotwal; Joseph M Lane Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Norah Harvey; Elke R Ahlmann; Daniel C Allison; Lingjun Wang; Lawrence R Menendez Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Matthew Steensma; Patrick J Boland; Carol D Morris; Edward Athanasian; John H Healey Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Tilman Bostel; Robert Förster; Ingmar Schlampp; Tania Sprave; Thomas Bruckner; Nils Henrik Nicolay; Stefan Ezechiel Welte; Jürgen Debus; Harald Rief Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 3.481