Literature DB >> 7642659

Prosthetic survival and clinical results with use of large-segment replacements in the treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas.

M M Malawer1, L B Chou.   

Abstract

We evaluated the long-term clinical results and the survival of the prostheses in eighty-two patients who had had a limb-sparing procedure by means of the implantation of a large-segment prosthesis. All patients had had a high-grade bone sarcoma of the distal, middle, or proximal part of the femur; the proximal part of the humerus; the proximal part of the tibia; or the pelvis. The duration of follow-up ranged from two to twelve years (median, three and one-half years). Function was evaluated with the revised 30-point classification system of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. The survival of the prostheses was analyzed with regard to several variables with use of Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Sixty-eight patients were alive at the latest follow-up evaluation. The survival rate of the prostheses was 83 per cent at five years and 67 per cent at ten years. Twelve prostheses were revised, and eleven revisions were successful. The rate of revision was highest (six of thirteen) in the patients who had had a tumor of the proximal part of the tibia. In contrast, only three (10 per cent) of the thirty-one patients who had had a tumor of the distal part of the femur and three (10 per cent) of the twenty-nine who had had a tumor of the proximal part of the humerus had a revision. Eleven patients (13 per cent) had an infection, which necessitated an amputation in six. Five patients (6 per cent) had a local recurrence, and nine patients (11 per cent), including the six already mentioned, ultimately needed an amputation. Patients who had had a tumor of the proximal part of the humerus had the highest functional scores, while those who had had a tumor of the proximal part of the tibia had the lowest scores. Large-segment prostheses were a good reconstructive option for the treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas in our patients. The rates of long-term survival of the prostheses were acceptable and the functional results were good or excellent after this form of treatment at most of the anatomical sites at which they were used.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7642659     DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199508000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  69 in total

1.  Revision of broken knee megaprostheses: new solution to old problems.

Authors:  Manish Agarwal; Ashish Gulia; B Ravi; Rupesh Ghyar; Ajay Puri
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Management of infection following reconstruction in bone tumors.

Authors:  Sudhir K Kapoor; Rajesh Thiyam
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2015-07-07

3.  Reconstruction of the elbow by Baksi sloppy hinge total elbow prosthesis following excision of a malignant fibrous histiocytoma.

Authors:  Alok Chandra Agrawal
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2015-06-04

Review 4.  Megaprostheses for the treatment of malignant bone tumours of the lower limbs.

Authors:  Christian Heisel; Stefan Kinkel; Ludger Bernd; Volker Ewerbeck
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-09-12       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Early distal femoral endoprosthetic survival: cemented stems versus the Compress implant.

Authors:  A A Bhangu; M J Kramer; R J Grimer; R J O'Donnell
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-09-16       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Osteogenic protein-1 delivered by hydroxyapatite-coated implants improves bone ingrowth in extracortical bone bridging.

Authors:  Neil Saran; Renwen Zhang; Robert E Turcotte
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Long-term outcomes of cement in cement technique for revision endoprosthesis surgery.

Authors:  Nicholas M Bernthal; Vishal Hegde; Stephen D Zoller; Howard Y Park; Jason H Ghodasra; Daniel Johansen; Frederick Eilber; Fritz C Eilber; Chandhanarat Chandhanayingyong; Jeffrey J Eckardt
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-10-29       Impact factor: 3.454

Review 8.  [Revision of tumour endoprostheses around the knee joint. Review and own results].

Authors:  R Windhager; A Leithner; M Hochegger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 9.  Outcome after reconstruction of the proximal humerus for tumor resection: a systematic review.

Authors:  Teun Teunis; Sjoerd P F T Nota; Francis J Hornicek; Joseph H Schwab; Santiago A Lozano-Calderón
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Proximal humerus reconstructions for tumors.

Authors:  Benjamin K Potter; Sheila C Adams; J David Pitcher; Theodore I Malinin; H Thomas Temple
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-09-27       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.