Literature DB >> 8542698

Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction.

R J Zehr1, W F Enneking, M T Scarborough.   

Abstract

A review of 33 patients who underwent proximal femoral resection for primary bone tumor and reconstruction with an allograft-prosthesis composite or a megaprosthesis is presented to consider the relative merits of the 2 procedures. Clinical function, reconstruction survival, and associated complications were analyzed. Eighteen composites in 16 patients and 18 megaprosthesis in 17 patients were analyzed. Infection in the composite group and instability in the megaprosthesis group were the common causes of failure and removal of reconstructions. The average functional evaluation in 14 surviving patients with composites was 87% of normal. In 10 surviving patients with megaprostheses, the average function was 80% when complications were avoided. Survival analysis of the patients with reconstructions showed a 10 year survival of 76% for the patients with composites and 58% for those with megaprostheses. Both composite and megaprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur seem to function equally well from the perspective of function and survival because no statistically significant difference could be shown by this review.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8542698

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  45 in total

1.  [Allografts in reconstruction of osseous defects in primary malignant bone tumors].

Authors:  P Wuisman; F Gohlke; A Witlox
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Distal femoral osteoarticular allografts: long-term survival, but frequent complications.

Authors:  Patrick C Toy; Jeremy R White; Mark T Scarborough; William F Enneking; C Parker Gibbs
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  [Extracorporeal irradiation : Reimplantation of bone segments in the treatment of malignant bone tumours].

Authors:  A H Krieg
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Proximal femur allograft-prosthesis with compression plates and a short stem.

Authors:  D Luis Muscolo; German L Farfalli; Luis A Aponte-Tinao; Miguel A Ayerza
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Revision of the deficient proximal femur with a proximal femoral allograft.

Authors:  Oleg Safir; Catherine F Kellett; Michael Flint; David Backstein; Allan E Gross
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Megaprosthesis versus Allograft Prosthesis Composite for massive skeletal defects.

Authors:  Deepak Gautam; Rajesh Malhotra
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-09-25

Review 7.  Revision arthroplasty: an update.

Authors:  D Williams; A Taylor; P McLardy-Smith
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 8.  The evolution of outcomes and indications for the dual-mobility cup: a systematic review.

Authors:  Cécile Batailler; Camdon Fary; Régis Verdier; Thierry Aslanian; Jacques Caton; Sebastien Lustig
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Proximal femoral reconstructions with bone impaction grafting and metal mesh.

Authors:  Martín A Buttaro; Fernando Comba; Francisco Piccaluga
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Survival of massive allografts in segmental oncological bone defect reconstructions.

Authors:  P H J Bullens; N M Minderhoud; M C de Waal Malefijt; R P H Veth; P Buma; H W B Schreuder
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.