The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2008;90:1265-1271.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01324
© 2008 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the exam for this article:
 CME 2: April, May, June 2008 (publication date July 3, 2008; expiration dat...
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jeys, L.M.
Right arrow Articles by Abudu, A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jeys, L.M.
Right arrow Articles by Abudu, A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Oncology
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Endoprosthetic Reconstruction for the Treatment of Musculoskeletal Tumors of the Appendicular Skeleton and Pelvis

L.M. Jeys, MSc(Orth)Eng, FRCS(Tr&Orth)1, A. Kulkarni, MRCS1, R.J. Grimer, FRCS1, S.R. Carter, FRCS1, R.M. Tillman, FRCS1 and A. Abudu, FRCS(Tr&Orth)1

1 Royal Orthopaedic Hospital Oncology Service, Bristol Road South, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2AP, United Kingdom. E-mail address for L.M. Jeys: lee.jeys{at}btclick.com
Investigation performed at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital Oncology Service, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.

Background: Excision of a bone tumor requires reconstruction if limb salvage is a priority. Reconstruction with an endoprosthetic implant is preferred in our unit, as the patient typically can return rapidly to full weight-bearing and functional activities. Long-term complications, such as deep infection, aseptic loosening, and mechanical failure of the implants, have led to concerns about the efficacy of reconstruction and the ability to revise failed implants while maintaining limb salvage in the longer term. The purpose of this study was to investigate the survival of endoprosthetic reconstructions in the medium to long term in order to determine the factors associated with their failure.

Methods: A consecutive series of 776 patients underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction following resection of a bone tumor at a minimum of ten years prior to this investigation. One hundred and nine children with a so-called growing endoprosthesis were excluded as they often require revision to an adult prosthesis near skeletal maturity. Six patients were excluded because of a lack of adequate follow-up data, leaving 661 patients for analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the implant was performed, with implant revision for any cause (infection, local recurrence, and mechanical failure), mechanical failure alone, and amputation used as the end points.

Results: The mean duration of follow-up was fifteen years for patients who survived the original disease. Two hundred and twenty-seven patients (34%) had revision surgery because of mechanical failure (116 patients), infection (seventy-five patients), and locally recurrent disease (thirty-six patients). Implant survival at ten years was 75% with mechanical failure as the end point and 58% with failure from any cause as the end point. The limb salvage rate was 84% at twenty years.

Conclusions: We believe these medium to long-term results with first-generation endoprostheses are encouraging and justify the continued use of endoprostheses for reconstruction following the excision of a bone tumor.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?