Literature DB >> 9718172

Limb salvage surgery for primary bone sarcoma of the lower extremities: long-term consequences of endoprosthetic reconstructions.

S J Ham1, H Schraffordt Koops, R P Veth, J R van Horn, W M Molenaar, H J Hoekstra.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy and endoprosthetic replacement for bone sarcomas of the lower extremity is well established. The specific long-term consequences of these endoprosthetic reconstructions for the patient's affected limb are unknown.
METHOD: The oncologic results and the survival of the endoprostheses were reviewed in 32 patients with primary bone sarcoma of the femur or proximal tibia. There were 26 high-grade sarcomas, and 6 low-grade sarcomas. A proximal femoral endoprosthesis was used for reconstruction in 4 patients, a total or push-through femoral endoprosthesis in 11 patients, a distal femoral endoprosthesis in 15 patients, and a proximal tibial endoprosthesis in two patients.
RESULTS: Median survival was 10 years (range, 1.1 to 18.9 years) for patients with high-grade sarcoma, and 8.1 years (range, 7.1 to 10 years) for patients with low-grade sarcomas. Distant metastases developed in seven patients (22%), all with stage IIB sarcoma, with concomitant local recurrence in 3 patients (9%). Five-year overall and disease-free survival rates for high-grade sarcomas were 81% and 73%, respectively. The overall endoprosthetic survival rate was 87% at 5 years, 80% at 10 years, and 56% at 15 years. Median follow-up of the original endoprostheses was 8.3 years (range, 0.6 to 18.7 years). Endoprosthesis-related complications occurred in 13 patients (41%); most complications were mechanical failures. The highest complication rate was found in distal femoral replacements (60%); amputation was necessary in both patients treated with a proximal tibial endoprosthesis. Five endoprostheses (16%) were revised. An amputation of the involved limb was performed in four patients (13%): in two patients because of local recurrence and in the other two patients because of infection. For patients alive at follow-up, the median functional Enneking evaluation score was 22 points (range, 12 to 28 points), with the highest functional scores in patients with a distal femoral endoprosthesis, and the lowest functional scores in patients with total or push-through femoral replacements.
CONCLUSION: Endoprosthetic reconstructions gave satisfying functional results in most patients after long-term survival. However, the proximal tibial and distal femoral endoprosthesis are particularly at risk for long-term endoprosthetic complications requiring additional surgical procedures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9718172     DOI: 10.1007/bf02303861

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  23 in total

1.  Causes and Frequencies of Reoperations After Endoprosthetic Reconstructions for Extremity Tumor Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Patrick Thornley; Matias Vicente; Austin MacDonald; Nathan Evaniew; Michelle Ghert; Roberto Velez
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Lower limb salvage surgery: modular endoprosthesis in bone tumour treatment.

Authors:  D Orlic; M Smerdelj; R Kolundzic; M Bergovec
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-08-08       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  [Long-term functional results after sarcoma resection].

Authors:  H-U Steinau; J Hauser; F Farzaliyev; L Podleska
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 0.955

4.  Curettage and cryosurgery for low-grade cartilage tumors is associated with low recurrence and high function.

Authors:  David G Mohler; Richard Chiu; David A McCall; Raffi S Avedian
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Surgical Angiogenesis in Porcine Tibial Allotransplantation: A New Large Animal Bone Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation Model.

Authors:  Dimitra Kotsougiani; Caroline A Hundepool; Joost I Willems; Patricia Friedrich; Alexander Y Shin; Allen T Bishop
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2017-08-13       Impact factor: 1.355

6.  The push-through total femoral prosthesis offers a functional alternative to total femoral replacement: a case series.

Authors:  Jelle Gorter; Joris J W Ploegmakers; Bas L E F Ten Have; Hendrik W B Schreuder; Paul C Jutte
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Aseptic failure: how does the Compress(®) implant compare to cemented stems?

Authors:  Andrew C Pedtke; Rosanna L Wustrack; Andrew S Fang; Robert J Grimer; Richard J O'Donnell
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Megaprosthesis versus Condyle-sparing intercalary allograft: distal femoral sarcoma.

Authors:  Melissa N Zimel; Amy M Cizik; Timothy B Rapp; Jason S Weisstein; Ernest U Conrad
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-08-07       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  [Bilateral fibula graft. Biological reconstruction following resection of malignant bone tumors].

Authors:  P-U Tunn; T K Moesta; H Delbrück
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 0.955

10.  Internal hemipelvectomy for pelvic sarcomas using a T-incision surgical approach.

Authors:  Richard D Lackman; Eileen A Crawford; Harish S Hosalkar; Joseph J King; Christian M Ogilvie
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-04-21       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.