Survival of massive allografts in segmental oncological bone defect reconstructions

Reconstructions of large segmental bone defects after resection of bone tumours with massive structural allografts have a high number of reported complications including fracture, infection and non-union. Our goal is to report the survival and complications of massive allografts in our patients. A total of 32 patients were evaluated for fracture, infection, non-union rate and survival of their massive allograft reconstructions. The average follow-up for this group was five years and three months. The total fracture rate was 13% with a total infection rate of 16%. We found a low union rate of 25%. The total survival of the allografts was 80.8% (± 18.7%) after five years. We found a five-year allograft survival of 80.8% which is comparable with other studies

Role of staged endoprosthetic revision with flap cover for limb salvage in endoprosthetic failure

Endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) is commonly required for limb salvage in bone malignancies. Endoprosthetic failure is a term used to denote mechanical failure or infection usually requiring removal of the prosthesis. Treatment of infection consists of EPR revision with or without placement of a temporary spacer. Flap cover (either local or free) may be required if the overlying soft tissues are of concern. It is claimed that the investment of the endoprosthesis in well-vacularised soft tissue facilitates the eradication of infection. This series included nine patients with endoprosthetic failure due to chronic infection who needed flap cover. These patients underwent revision of the EPR in two stages. The first stage of revision included removal of the endoprosthesis, insertion of a spacer and soft tissue reconstruction. If serial sampling of the periprosthetic space failed to demonstrate microbial growth, the spacer was exchanged for an endoprosthesis. A total of nine patients underwent staged revision of endoprosthesis. In five patients cover was provided by a local pedicled flap and in four by a free flap. Patients undergoing cover by a broad flat musculocutaneous flap (i.e. free/pedicled latissimus dorsi) performed better. This study reports the results of attempted limb salvage in endoprosthetic failure due to infection in nine cases. Initial findings in this small series indicate that staged revision and soft tissue reconstruction in the form of muscle flap investment of the endoprosthesis carries a higher rate of successful limb salvage

Proximal Humerus Reconstructions for Tumors

The optimal method for reconstructing the proximal humerus in patients with tumors is controversial. To determine functional outcomes and complication rates after different types of reconstructions, we reviewed a consecutive series of 49 patients who underwent proximal humerus resection and osteoarticular allograft (17 patients), allograft-prosthetic composite (16), or endoprosthetic (16) reconstruction. Operative indications included primary malignancies (24 patients), metastatic disease (19), and benign aggressive disease (six). Implant revision was more common after osteoarticular reconstruction (five of 17) than after allograft-prosthetic composite (one of 16) or endoprosthetic (zero of 16) reconstructions. At a minimum followup of 24 months (median, 98 months; range, 24–214 months) in surviving patients, Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional scores averaged 79% for the allograft-prosthetic composite, 71% for the osteoarticular allograft, and 69% for the endoprosthetic reconstruction cohorts. Shoulder instability was associated with abductor mechanism compromise and was more common after endoprosthetic reconstruction. Allograft fractures occurred in 53% of patients receiving osteoarticular allografts. We recommend allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction for younger patients with primary tumors of bone and endoprosthetic reconstruction for older patients with metastatic disease. Because of the unacceptable complication rate, we do not recommend osteoarticular allograft reconstruction for routine use in the proximal humerus

Megaprostheses for the treatment of malignantbone tumours of the lower limbs

Lower limb salvage surgery remains a challenge in orthopaedic oncology. Both cemented and cementless, modular, endoprosthetic systems are widely used to treat defects of different sizes. The systems have changed over the years, and each major orthopaedic company offers a modular tumour and revision system for the lower extremities. All systems have worse long-term results compared to conventional total hip or total knee systems. This is due to the large defects that need to be bridged with a more difficult fixation in the diapyhsis of the femur and tibia and a more complex restoration of joint biomechanics. This article summarises the results of several clinical studies with different systems. Newer systems without clinical follow-up are described. We previously reported a prospective study of 50 consecutive patients treated with the MUTARS endoprostheses. The follow-up was 2–7 years. Clinical evaluation showed good results compared to other systems. The review of the literature and our own results do not validate the support or favouring of one specific system. The surgeon should choose a system with which he/she is familiar and that provides the modularity needed intraoperatively to bridge any defect in the lower limbs