Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2022; 57(06): 1030-1038
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748966
Artigo Original
Oncologia

Reconstruction with Unconventional Endoprostheses after Resection of Primary Distal Femoral Bone Tumors: Implant Survival and Functional Outcomes

Article in several languages: português | English
Cibele Marino Pereira 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Fábio Fernando Elói Pinto 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Suely Akiko Nakagawa 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
,
Wu Tu Chung 
1   Departamento de Ortopedia, AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the survival time, the failure rate and its causes, and the functional results of cemented endoprostheses, with a polyethylene body, used after resection of primary bone tumors of the distal femur.

Methods A retrospective study including 93 primary and 77 review procedures performed between 1987 and 2014. Survival was obtained by the Kaplan Meyer analysis, and the risk factors for implant failure were assessed through the Cox proportional risk model. The causes of endoprosthesis failure were classified according to Henderson et al. into five types: soft-tissue failure, aseptic loosening, structural fracture, infection, and tumor recurrence. The functional evaluation was performed using the functional classification system of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) of bone sarcomas of the lower extremity, Brazilian version (MSTS-BR).

Results Osteosarcoma was the most common diagnosis; 64.5% of the patients were younger than 20 years of age; the mean follow-up was of 124.3 months. The failure rate of the primary implant was of 54.8%, and the mean survival was of 123 months. The estimated survival of the primary implant was of 63.6%, 43.5%, 24.1%, and 14.5% in 5, 10, 15, and 20 years respectively. The most common cause of failure was type 2 (37.3%). Age ≤ 26 years and right side were risk factors for failure. The mean MSTS-BR score was of 20.7 (range: 14 to 27).

Conclusion The results obtained for the failure rate and survival of the implant are in accordance with those of the literature, so the procedure herein studied is adequate and yields satisfactory functional results, even in the long term.

Keywords

endoprostheses - femur - bone neoplasms - osteosarcoma - reconstructive surgical procedures - limb salvage

Financial Support

The present study did not receive financial support from public, commercial, or non-profit sources.




Publication History

Received: 29 November 2021

Accepted: 04 March 2022

Article published online:
16 December 2022

© 2022. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Hwang JS, Mehta AD, Yoon RS, Beebe KS. From amputation to limb salvage reconstruction: evolution and role of the endoprosthesis in musculoskeletal oncology. J Orthop Traumatol 2014; 15 (02) 81-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Pala E, Henderson ER, Calabrò T. et al. Survival of current production tumor endoprostheses: complications, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis. J Surg Oncol 2013; 108 (06) 403-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kinkel S, Lehner B, Kleinhans JA, Jakubowitz E, Ewerbeck V, Heisel C. Medium to long-term results after reconstruction of bone defects at the knee with tumor endoprostheses. J Surg Oncol 2010; 101 (02) 166-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cannon CP, Zeegen E, Eckardt JJ. Techniques in Endoprosthestic Reconstruction. Oper Tech Orthop 2005; 14: 225-235
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pugh LR, Clarkson PW, Phillips AE, Biau DJ, Masri BA. Tumor endoprosthesis revision rates increase with peri-operative chemotherapy but are reduced with the use of cemented implant fixation. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (07) 1418-1422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ottaviani G, Robert RS, Huh WW, Palla S, Jaffe N. Sociooccupational and physical outcomes more than 20 years after the diagnosis of osteosarcoma in children and adolescents: limb salvage versus amputation. Cancer 2013; 119 (20) 3727-3736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Houdek MT, Wagner ER, Wilke BK, Wyles CC, Taunton MJ, Sim FH. Long term outcomes of cemented endoprosthetic reconstruction for periarticular tumors of the distal femur. Knee 2016; 23 (01) 167-172
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chan D, Carter SR, Grimer RJ, Sneath RS. Endoprosthetic replacement for bony metastases. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1992; 74 (01) 13-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Pala E. et al. Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (05) 418-429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Haijie L, Dasen L, Tao J, Yi Y, Xiaodong T, Wei G. Implant Survival and Complication Profiles of Endoprostheses for Treating Tumor Around the Knee in Adults: A Systematic Review of the Literature Over the Past 30 Years. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (04) 1275-1287.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Schwartz AJ, Kabo JM, Eilber FC, Eilber FR, Eckardt JJ. Cemented distal femoral endoprostheses for musculoskeletal tumor: improved survival of modular versus custom implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (08) 2198-2210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rebolledo DC, Vissoci JR, Pietrobon R, de Camargo OP, Baptista AM. Validation of the Brazilian version of the musculoskeletal tumor society rating scale for lower extremity bone sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (12) 4020-4026
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lausen B, Schumacher M. Maximally Selected Rank Statistics. Biometrics 1992; 48: 73-85
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cox DR. Regression models and life-tables (with discussion). J R Stat Soc B 1972; 34 (02) 187-220
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Schoenfeld D. Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika 1982; 69: 239-241
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Grambsch PM, Therneau TM. Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika 1994; 81: 515-526
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Pala E, Trovarelli G, Calabrò T, Angelini A, Abati CN, Ruggieri P. Survival of modern knee tumor megaprostheses: failures, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (03) 891-899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Pala E, Trovarelli G, Angelini A, Ruggieri P. Distal femur reconstruction with modular tumour prostheses: a single Institution analysis of implant survival comparing fixed versus rotating hinge knee prostheses. Int Orthop 2016; 40 (10) 2171-2180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bergin PF, Noveau JB, Jelinek JS, Henshaw RM. Aseptic loosening rates in distal femoral endoprostheses: does stem size matter?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (03) 743-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar