| Literature DB >> 36076197 |
Xin Hu1,2, Minxun Lu1,2, Xuanhong He1,2, Longqing Li1,2, Jingqi Lin1,2, Yong Zhou1,2, Yi Luo1,2, Li Min3,4, Chongqi Tu5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hip-preserved reconstruction for patients with ultrashort proximal femur segments following extensive femoral diaphyseal tumor resection is a formidable undertaking. A customized intercalary prosthesis with a rhino horn-designed uncemented stem was developed for the reconstruction of these extensive skeletal defects.Entities:
Keywords: 3D-printed prosthesis; Bone tumor; Finite element analysis; Intercalary endoprosthesis; Ultrashort femur segments
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36076197 PMCID: PMC9454185 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05805-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.562
Fig. 1Diagram of the rhino horn-designed uncemented stem: a Schematic drawing of the prosthetic stem. The curved lines L1-3 represented different stem ROC, and three representative prosthetic stems were created based on those curved lines. b The stem tip position varied with the stem ROC; the green stem, yellow stem, and red stem represents Stem C, Stem B, and Stem A, respectively. c The photographs of the prosthetic stem and its plastic models
Fig. 2Diagram of the finite element models: a The normal femur. b The femur remaining after tumor resection. c The intercalary femoral replacement model. d Cross-sectional drawing of the intercalary femoral replacement model. The porous titanium 1 has a pore size of 400um and 50% porosity; the porous titanium 2 has a pore size of 500 μm and 70% porosity. e The hip joint-femur muscle multiple force was applied to the femur model while the distal condyle articular surface was fixed
material properties of the bone and implants
| Materials | Modulus of elasticity (Gpa) | Poisson’s ratio |
|---|---|---|
| Cortical bone | 13.7 | 0.3 |
| Trabeculae bone | 1.85 | 0.3 |
| Solid titanium (Ti–6Al–4 V) | 110 | 0.3 |
| Porous titanium (medial) | 3.5 | 0.3 |
| Porous titanium (lateral) | 1.12 | 0.44 |
The direction and magnitude of the hip reaction and muscle forces
| Muscle group/contact force (N) | Force applied (X) | Force applied (Y) | Force applied (Z) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hip reaction force | -790 | 230.1 | -1886.7 |
| Gluteus maximum | 169.6 | -78.2 | 223.8 |
| Glutei | 225.7 | -32.3 | 312.1 |
| Iliopsoas | -0.5 | 65.6 | 55.8 |
| Piriformis | 104 | -56.5 | 34.9 |
| Vastus lateralis | 42 | -193 | -813 |
Basic patient information
| Patients | Sex/Age | Diagnosis | Enneking stage | Follow-up (month) | Osteotomy length (mm) | Proximal femur length after tumor resection (mm) | Full femur length (mm) | Percentage of sectional femur length in the full femur length (%) | Neck-shaft angle (°) | Anteversion angle (°) | Stem type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M/45 | Parosteal osteosarcoma | IIB | 48 | 185.0 | 72.5 | 425.2 | 43.5 | 124 | 13.2 | Stem B |
| 2 | M/11 | Ewing sarcoma | IIB | 27 | 189.5 | 50.5 | 365.2 | 51.9 | 125 | 14.1 | Stem B |
| 3 | M/30 | Myofibroblastic sarcoma | IIB | 24 | 228.4 | 74.4 | 401.8 | 56.8 | 128 | 12.9 | Stem B |
| 4 | F/18 | Parosteal osteosarcoma | IIB | 31 | 113.8 | 53.0 | 405.2 | 28.1 | 124 | 14.2 | Stem C |
| 5 | F/22 | Osteosarcoma | IIB | 30 | 258.4 | 75.8 | 411.2 | 62.8 | 129 | 14.5 | Stem C |
| 6 | F/13 | Osteosarcoma | IIB | 48 | 137.5 | 76.5 | 395.7 | 34.7 | 130 | 13.5 | Stem A |
| 7 | M/77 | Liposarcomas | IIB | 18 | 211.5 | 74.8 | 440.2 | 48.0 | 127 | 12.5 | Stem A |
| 8 | F/21 | Osteosarcoma | IIB | 31 | 176.0 | 59.2 | 420.1 | 41.9 | 119 | 13.7 | Stem A |
| 9 | M/18 | Osteosarcoma | IIB | 27 | 198.0 | 74.0 | 410.7 | 48.2 | 122 | 14.1 | Stem A |
| 10 | F/25 | Osteosarcoma | IIB | 36 | 110.5 | 71.0 | 415.4 | 26.6 | 125 | 13.5 | Stem B |
| 11 | M/15 | Ewing sarcoma | IIB | 28 | 105.0 | 67.0 | 395.2 | 26.6 | 134 | 14.2 | Stem C |
| 12 | F/16 | Ewing sarcoma | IIB | 40 | 139.5 | 65.5 | 392.8 | 35.5 | 126 | 15.2 | Stem C |
(Proximal femur length after tumor resection = the length from the pyriform fossa to the osteotomy level)
Fig. 3The prosthesis migration evaluation: the stem tip migration was calculated as [(a-A) + (B—b)]/2
Fig. 4The displacement and stress distribution of the normal femur: a Displacement distribution b Stress distribution. The stress distribution of the femoral neck area was highlighted in the plots by black box, and the peak stress was 20.05 Mpa
Fig. 5The displacement and stress distribution of the remaining femurs: a The stress was equally distributed, and no visible signs of stress concentration occurred in the remaining femur in Model#1 (by stem A). b Stress shielding can be observed at the femoral neck area in the remaining femur in Model#2 (by stem B). c Significant stress concentration can be observed in the remaining femur in model#3 (by stem C). d Remarkable stress concentration and high displacement can be both observed in the remaining femur in model#4 (by stem D)
Fig. 6The displacement and stress distribution of the prosthetic stems: a The stress and displacement of stem A. b The stress and displacement of stem B. c The stress and displacement of stem C. d The stress and displacement of stem D
Fig. 7Preoperative and postoperative X-ray evaluations for typical case reconstructed by Stem B: a Preoperative X-ray of femur of Patient 2. b Intercalary femoral replacement was performed. c X-ray of femur taken at 2 days after surgery. d X-ray taken 24 months after surgery. The Stem tip migration occurred (green box)
Clinical follow-up data of patients
| Patients | VAS score | MSTS score | Recurrence or metastasis | Postoperative complications | Prosthetic stem tip migration (mm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preop | Last follow-up | Preop | Last follow-up | ||||
| 1 | 5 | 0 | 18 | 26 | None | None | 2.0 |
| 2 | 5 | 0 | 19 | 25 | None | None | 4.0 |
| 3 | 4 | 0 | 19 | 27 | None | None | 1.0 |
| 4 | 6 | 0 | 19 | 25 | None | None | 2.0 |
| 5 | 7 | 0 | 18 | 24 | None | None | 1.0 |
| 6 | 7 | 0 | 20 | 26 | None | None | 1.0 |
| 7 | 4 | 2 | 19 | 25 | None | None | 1.5 |
| 8 | 5 | 2 | 18 | 24 | None | None | 0.0 |
| 9 | 6 | 0 | 19 | 24 | None | None | 0.0 |
| 10 | 6 | 0 | 20 | 25 | None | None | 1.0 |
| 11 | 5 | 2 | 17 | 28 | None | None | 1.0 |
| 12 | 5 | 0 | 18 | 27 | None | None | 0.0 |
Fig. 8Preoperative and postoperative X-ray evaluations for typical case reconstructed by Stem A: a Preoperative X-ray of femur of Patient 7. b Preoperative MRI of the femur. c Intercalary femoral replacement was performed. d X-ray taken 1 day after surgery. e X-ray taken 12 months after surgery. Note the stem tip placement without any drift (green box). f T-SMART taken at 12 months after surgery, and the osseointegration of the implant-bone interface can be observed
Fig. 9Preoperative and postoperative X-ray evaluations for typical case reconstructed by Stem C: a Preoperative X-ray of femur of Patient 4. b Intercalary femoral replacement was performed. c X-ray taken 1 day after surgery. d X-ray taken 12 months after surgery. No obvious stem tip migration occurred (green box). e T-SMART taken at 12 months after surgery, and the osseointegration of the implant-bone interface can be observed