Limb reconstruction with knee mega-prosthesis in patients with distal femur primary tumours: gait analysis and alignment evaluation

Introduction: The aim of this study was the functional evaluation and lower limb alignment assessment of patients with a modular knee prosthesis after distal femur resection for primary bone tumour. Materials and methods: 15 patients affected by distal femur tumor and treated with a megaprosthesis implant (6 females and 9 males, mean age: 41 years, range: 15-74 years) and 15 controls were recruited for the study. For each subject the function evaluation included an instrumented gait analysis, while only patients underwent a teleradiography and a latero-lateral X-ray projection of the knee. Results: The duration of the stance phase of gait was shortened in the prosthetic limb with respect to the contralateral limb (57.5±3.6 % gait cycle vs. 60.9±4.8 % gait cycle, P = 0.01), with a correspondent increase of the swing phase. The prosthetic limb also showed an altered knee joint kinematic curve during gait, with a flexion deficit at load response with respect to the contralateral limb (4.5±3.6° vs. 13.4±5.0°, P = 0.000003). Abnormal timing in the muscle activation intervals were observed for tibialis anterior, gastrocnemius lateralis and rectus femoris of the prosthetic limb. The prosthetic limb was found to be misaligned with respect to the contralateral limb, both for the femorotibial (P<0.05) and the ankle joints (P<0.05). Conclusions: Gait analysis performed widely in reference centres could lead to a change in the design of megaprostheses to improve the function and prevent degenerative changes in not involved joint. A multicentric expertise is mandator

Barriers and facilitators experienced in collaborative prospective research in orthopaedic oncology

Recerca col·laborativa; Grup focal; Oncologia ortopèdicaCollaborative research; Focus group; Orthopaedic oncologyInvestigación colaborativa; Grupo focal; Oncología ortopédicaObjectives As tumours of bone and soft tissue are rare, multicentre prospective collaboration is essential for meaningful research and evidence-based advances in patient care. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators encountered in large-scale collaborative research by orthopaedic oncological surgeons involved or interested in prospective multicentre collaboration. Methods All surgeons who were involved, or had expressed an interest, in the ongoing Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumour Surgery (PARITY) trial were invited to participate in a focus group to discuss their experiences with collaborative research in this area. The discussion was digitally recorded, transcribed and anonymised. The transcript was analysed qualitatively, using an analytic approach which aims to organise the data in the language of the participants with little theoretical interpretation. Results The 13 surgeons who participated in the discussion represented orthopaedic oncology practices from seven countries (Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Denmark, United States and Canada). Four categories and associated themes emerged from the discussion: the need for collaboration in the field of orthopaedic oncology due to the rarity of the tumours and the need for high level evidence to guide treatment; motivational factors for participating in collaborative research including establishing proof of principle, learning opportunity, answering a relevant research question and being part of a collaborative research community; barriers to participation including funding, personal barriers, institutional barriers, trial barriers, and administrative barriers and facilitators for participation including institutional facilitators, leadership, authorship, trial set-up, and the support of centralised study coordination. Conclusions Orthopaedic surgeons involved in an ongoing international randomised controlled trial (RCT) were motivated by many factors to participate. There were a number of barriers to and facilitators for their participation. There was a collective sense of fatigue experienced in overcoming these barriers, which was mirrored by a strong collective sense of the importance of, and need for, collaborative research in this field. The experiences were described as essential educational first steps to advance collaborative studies in this area. Knowledge gained from this study will inform the development of future large-scale collaborative research projects in orthopaedic oncology

Is fluorescein-guided technique able to help in resection of high-grade gliomas?

OBJECT: Fluorescein, a dye that is widely used as a fluorescent tracer, accumulates in cerebral areas where the blood-brain barrier is damaged. This quality makes it an ideal dye for the intraoperative visualization of high-grade gliomas (HGGs). The authors report their experience with a new fluorescein-guided technique for the resection of HGGs using a dedicated filter on the surgical microscope. METHODS: The authors initiated a prospective Phase II trial (FLUOGLIO) in September 2011 with the objective of evaluating the safety of fluorescein-guided surgery for HGGs and obtaining preliminary evidence regarding its efficacy for this purpose. To be eligible for participation in the study, a patient had to have suspected HGG amenable to complete resection of the contrast-enhancing area. The present report is based on the analysis of the short- and long-term results in 20 consecutive patients with HGGs (age range 45-74 years), enrolled in the study since September 2011. In all cases fluorescein (5-10 mg/kg) was injected intravenously after intubation. Tumor resection was performed with microsurgical technique and fluorescence visualization by means of BLUE 400 or YELLOW 560 filters on a Pentero microscope. RESULTS: The median preoperative tumor volume was 30.3 cm(3) (range 2.4-87.8 cm(3)). There were no adverse reactions related to fluorescein administration. Complete removal of contrast-enhanced tumor was achieved in 80% of the patients. The median duration of follow-up was 10 months. The 6-months progression-free survival rate was 71.4% and the median survival was 11 months. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of these 20 cases suggested that fluorescein-guided technique with a dedicated filter on the surgical microscope is safe and allows a high rate of complete resection of contrast-enhanced tumor as determined on early postoperative MRI. Clinical trial registration no.: 2011-002527-18 (EudraCT)

Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging versus Contrast-enhanced US: A Comparison in Glioblastoma Surgery by Using Intraoperative Fusion Imaging

Purpose To compare contrast material enhancement of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) with intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (US) versus that with preoperative gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by using real-time fusion imaging. Materials and Methods Ten patients with GBM were retrospectively identified by using routinely collected, anonymized data. Navigated contrast-enhanced US was performed after intravenous administration of contrast material before tumor resection. All patients underwent tumor excision with navigated intraoperative US guidance with use of fusion imaging between real-time intraoperative US and preoperative MR imaging. With use of fusion imaging, glioblastoma contrast enhancement at contrast-enhanced US (regarding location, morphologic features, margins, dimensions, and pattern) was compared with that at gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging. Results Fusion imaging for virtual navigation enabled matching of real-time contrast-enhanced US scans to corresponding coplanar preoperative gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR images in all cases, with a positional discrepancy of less than 2 mm. Contrast enhancement of gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging and contrast-enhanced US was superimposable in all cases with regard to location, margins, dimensions, and morphologic features. The qualitative analysis of contrast enhancement pattern demonstrated a similar distribution in contrast-enhanced US and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging in nine patients: Seven lesions showed peripheral inhomogeneous ring enhancement, and two lesions showed a prevalent nodular pattern. In one patient, the contrast enhancement pattern differed between the two modalities: Contrast-enhanced US showed enhancement of the entire bulk of the tumor, whereas gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging demonstrated peripheral contrast enhancement. Conclusion Glioblastoma contrast enhancement with contrast-enhanced US is superimposable on that provided with preoperative gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging regarding location, margins, morphologic features, and dimensions, with a similar enhancement pattern in most cases. Thus, contrast-enhanced US is of potential use in the surgical management of GBM