12 research outputs found

    How Often Does Spindle Failure Occur in Compressive Osseointegration Endoprostheses for Oncologic Reconstruction?

    No full text
    BackgroundCompressive osseointegration is a promising modality for limb salvage in distal femoral oncologic tumors. However, few studies have explored short-term survival rates in a large patient cohort of distal femur compressive endoprostheses or highlighted the risk factors for spindle failures.Questions/purposesWe asked: (1) What is the frequency of compressive osseointegration spindle failure in distal femoral reconstructions? (2) What are the characteristics of rotational failure cases with distal femur compressive osseointegration endoprostheses? (3) What are the risk factors for mechanical and rotational failure of distal femur compressive osseointegration implantation? (4) What are other modalities of failure or causes of revision surgery, which affect patients undergoing distal femur compressive osseointegration implantation for oncologic reconstruction?MethodsBetween 1996 and 2013, 127 distal femoral reconstructions with the Compress(Ā®) prosthesis were performed in 121 patients. During that time, 116 Compress(Ā®) prostheses were implanted for aggressive primary tumors of the distal femur and/or failure of previous oncologic reconstruction. This approach represented approximately 91% of the distal femoral reconstructions performed during that time. Of the patients with prostheses implanted, four patients (four of 116, 3%) had died, and 37 (37 of 116, 32%) were lost to followup before 24 months. The median followup was 84 months (range, 24-198 months), and 71 patients (66% of all patients) were seen within the last 3 years. A retrospective chart review was performed to determine failure modality as defined by radiographs, clinical history, and intraoperative findings. Risk factors including age, sex, BMI, resection length, and perioperative chemotherapy were analyzed to determine effect on spindle and rotational failure rates. Survival analysis was determined using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Differences in survival between groups were analyzed using the log rank test. Risk factors were determined using Cox proportional hazard modeling.ResultsSpindle survival at 5 and 10 years was 91% (95% CI, 82%-95%). Survival rates from rotational failure at 5 and 10 years were 92% (95% CI, 83%-96%); the majority of failures occurred within the first 2 years postoperatively and were the result of a twisting mechanism of injury. With the numbers available, none of the potential risk factors examined were associated with mechanical failure. The 5-year and 10-year all-cause revision-free survival rates were 57% (95% CI, 44%-67%) and 50% (95% CI, 36%-61%), respectively.ConclusionsDistal femur compressive osseointegration is a viable method for endoprosthetic reconstruction. Rotational failure is rare with the majority occurring early. No variables were found to correlate with increased risk of mechanical failure. More research is needed to evaluate methods of preventing mechanical and rotational failures in addition to other common causes of revision such as infection in these massive endoprosthetic reconstructions.Level of evidenceLevel IV, therapeutic study

    How Often Does Spindle Failure Occur in Compressive Osseointegration Endoprostheses for Oncologic Reconstruction?

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Compressive osseointegration is a promising modality for limb salvage in distal femoral oncologic tumors. However, few studies have explored short-term survival rates in a large patient cohort of distal femur compressive endoprostheses or highlighted the risk factors for spindle failures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) What is the frequency of compressive osseointegration spindle failure in distal femoral reconstructions? (2) What are the characteristics of rotational failure cases with distal femur compressive osseointegration endoprostheses? (3) What are the risk factors for mechanical and rotational failure of distal femur compressive osseointegration implantation? (4) What are other modalities of failure or causes of revision surgery, which affect patients undergoing distal femur compressive osseointegration implantation for oncologic reconstruction? METHODS: Between 1996 and 2013, 127 distal femoral reconstructions with the Compress(Ā®) prosthesis were performed in 121 patients. During that time, 116 Compress(Ā®) prostheses were implanted for aggressive primary tumors of the distal femur and/or failure of previous oncologic reconstruction. This approach represented approximately 91% of the distal femoral reconstructions performed during that time. Of the patients with prostheses implanted, four patients (four of 116, 3%) had died, and 37 (37 of 116, 32%) were lost to followup before 24 months. The median followup was 84 months (range, 24ā€“198 months), and 71 patients (66% of all patients) were seen within the last 3 years. A retrospective chart review was performed to determine failure modality as defined by radiographs, clinical history, and intraoperative findings. Risk factors including age, sex, BMI, resection length, and perioperative chemotherapy were analyzed to determine effect on spindle and rotational failure rates. Survival analysis was determined using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Differences in survival between groups were analyzed using the log rank test. Risk factors were determined using Cox proportional hazard modeling. RESULTS: Spindle survival at 5 and 10 years was 91% (95% CI, 82%ā€“95%). Survival rates from rotational failure at 5 and 10 years were 92% (95% CI, 83%ā€“96%); the majority of failures occurred within the first 2 years postoperatively and were the result of a twisting mechanism of injury. With the numbers available, none of the potential risk factors examined were associated with mechanical failure. The 5-year and 10-year all-cause revision-free survival rates were 57% (95% CI, 44%ā€“67%) and 50% (95% CI, 36%ā€“61%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Distal femur compressive osseointegration is a viable method for endoprosthetic reconstruction. Rotational failure is rare with the majority occurring early. No variables were found to correlate with increased risk of mechanical failure. More research is needed to evaluate methods of preventing mechanical and rotational failures in addition to other common causes of revision such as infection in these massive endoprosthetic reconstructions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study

    Use of three-dimensional printing and intraoperative navigation in the surgical resection of metastatic acetabular osteosarcoma

    No full text
    A 21-year-old man underwent a joint-preserving posterior acetabular resection of metastatic osteosarcoma using a three-dimensional (3D) printed model and intraoperative navigation. The combined application of these advanced technologies can allow for surgical planning of osteotomies involving complex anatomy and help guide resections intraoperatively. They can maximise the achievement of negative oncological margins, preservation of native hip stability and critical neurovascular structures, and optimal postoperative function in an effort to resect all clinically evident disease. For this particular patient, with secondary bony metastases, they allowed for a safe and well-tolerated procedure that ultimately afforded him palliative benefit, improved quality of life and, conceivably, prolonged survival in the setting of a devastating prognosis. Although he, sadly, has since passed away, he survived for over 2 years after initial metastasis with preserved hip stability and the ability to graduate college, stay active and maintain a quality of life that addressed his goals of care

    Intraoperative Radiotherapy in the Management of Locally Recurrent Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcoma

    Get PDF
    Purpose. To investigate the efficacy and morbidity of limb-sparing surgery with intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) for patients with locally recurrent extremity soft tissue sarcoma (ESTS). Methods and Materials. Twenty-six consecutively treated patients were identified in a single institution retrospective analysis of patients with locally recurrent ESTS treated with IORT following salvage limb-sparing resection from May 2000 to July 2011. Fifteen (58%) patients received external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) prior to recurrence (median dose 63ā€‰Gy), while 11 (42%) patients received EBRT following IORT (median dose 52ā€‰Gy). The Kaplan-Meier product limit method was used to estimate disease control and survival and subsets were compared using a log rank statistic, Coxā€™s regression model was used to determine independent predictors of disease outcome, and toxicity was reported according to CTCAE v4.0 guidelines. Results. With a median duration of follow-up from surgery and IORT of 34.9 months (range: 4 to 139ā€‰mos.), 10 patients developed a local recurrence with 4 subsequently undergoing amputation. The 5-year estimate for local control (LC) was 58% (95% CI: 36ā€“75%), for amputation-free was 81% (95% CI: 57ā€“93%), for metastasis-free control (MFC) was 56% (95% CI: 31ā€“75%), for disease-free survival (DFS) was 35% (95% CI: 17ā€“54%), and for overall survival (OS) was 50% (95% CI: 24ā€“71%). Prior EBRT did not appear to influence disease control (LC, p=0.74; MFC, p=0.66) or survival (DFS, p=0.16; OS, p=0.58). Grade 3 or higher acute and late toxicities were reported for 6 (23%) and 8 (31%) patients, respectively. The frequency of both acute and late grade 3 or higher toxicities occurred equally between patients who received EBRT prior to or after IORT. Conclusions. IORT in combination with oncologic resection of recurrent ESTS yields good rates of local control and limb-salvage with acceptable morbidity. Within the limitations of small subsets, these data suggest that prior EBRT does not significantly influence disease control or toxicity
    corecore