Functional results in the surgical treatment of a tumor lesion of the proximal humerus with endoprosthetics
D. O. Elkhov,
D. A. Erin,
A. V. Bukharov,
E. V. Filonenko,
V. A. Derzhavin,
A. V. Yadrina,
A. M. Shatalov https://doi.org/10.17650/2219-4614-2022-14-3-20-25
Abstract
The article presents current trends in surgical treatment for oncological endoprosthesis of the shoulder joint. The main benefits and disadvantages of the 2 main techniques used in shoulder joint endoprosthesis are analyzed. Possibilities of their use in certain groups of patients are considered.
Aim. To systemize and analyze the results of using anatomical and reverse endoprosthesis, consider possibilities of optimization of selection of treatment tactics.
About the Authors
D. O. Elkhov
P.A. Herzen Moscow Research Oncological Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Center of Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Daniil Olegovich Elkhov
3 2nd Botkinsky proezd, Moscow 125284
D. A. Erin
P.A. Herzen Moscow Research Oncological Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Center of Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
3 2nd Botkinsky proezd, Moscow 125284
A. V. Bukharov
P.A. Herzen Moscow Research Oncological Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Center of Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
3 2nd Botkinsky proezd, Moscow 125284
E. V. Filonenko
P.A. Herzen Moscow Research Oncological Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Center of Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
3 2nd Botkinsky proezd, Moscow 125284
V. A. Derzhavin
P.A. Herzen Moscow Research Oncological Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Center of Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
3 2nd Botkinsky proezd, Moscow 125284
A. V. Yadrina
P.A. Herzen Moscow Research Oncological Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Center of Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
3 2nd Botkinsky proezd, Moscow 125284
A. M. Shatalov
P.A. Herzen Moscow Research Oncological Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Center of Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
3 2nd Botkinsky proezd, Moscow 125284
References
1. Damron T.A. Oncology and basic science. Lippincot Williams & Wilkins, 2008. Pp. 3, 63.
2. Choi D., Bilsky M., Fehlings M. et al. Spine oncology-metastatic spine tumors. Neurosurgery 2017;80:S131–7. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyw084
3. Wittig J.C., Bickels J., Kellar-Graney K.L. et al. Osteosarcoma of the proximal humerus: long-term results with limb-sparing surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;397:156–76. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200204000-00021
4. Bielack S.S., Kempf-Bielack B., Delling G. et al. Prognostic factors in high- grade osteosarcoma of the extremities or trunk: an analysis of 1,702 patients treated on neoadjuvant cooperative osteosarcoma study group protocols. J Clin Oncol 2002;20(3):776–90. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.3.776
5. Piccioli A., Maccauro G., Rossi B. et al. Surgical treatment of pathologic fractures of humerus. Injury 2010;41(11):1112–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.08.015
6. Dahlin D.C. Bone tumors: general aspects and data on 6221 cases. 3rd edn. Springfield, IL, USA: Charles C Thomas, 1978.
7. Malawer M.M., Sugarbaker P.H., Lampert M. et al. The Tikhoff–Linberg procedure: report of ten patients and presentation of a modified technique for tumors of the proximal humerus. Surgery 1985;97(5):518–28.
8. Sirveaux F. Reconstruction techniques after proximal humerus tumour resection. Orthop Res 2019;105(1):S153–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.04.024
9. Gebhardt M.C., Roth Y.F., Mankin H.J. Osteoarticular allografts for reconstruction in the proximal part of the humerus after excision of a musculoskeletal tumor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990;72(3):334–45.
10. Gebhardt M.C., Flugstad D.I., Springfield D.S., Mankin H.J. The use of bone allografts for limb salvage in high-grade extremity osteosarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991;270:181–96.
11. Winkelmann W.W. Clavicula pro humero – a new surgical method for malignant tumors of the proximal humerus. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzdeb 1992;130:197–201. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1040138
12. Бухаров А.В., Алиев М.Д., Державин В.А., Ядрина А.В. Стратегия персонализированного хирургического лечения онкологических больных с метастазами в костях. Онкология. Журнал им. П.А. Герцена 2020;9(3):61–5. Bukharov A.V., Aliyev M.D., Derzhavin V.A., Yadrina A.V. Strategy of personalized surgical treatment of cancer patients with bone metastases. Onkologiya. Zhurnal im. P.A. Gercena = Oncology. P.A. Herzen Journal 2020;9(3):61–5. (In Russ.).
13. Карпенко В.Ю., Державин В.А., Бухаров А.В. Эндопротезирование плечевого сустава при опухолевом поражении проксимального отдела плечевой кости. Исследования и практика в медицине 2015;2(2):15–23. Karpenko V.Yu., Derzhavin V.A., Bukharov A.V. Endoprosthetics of the shoulder joint with tumor of the proximal humerus. Issledovaniya i praktika v medicine = Research and Practice in Medicine 2015;2(2):15–23. (In Russ.).
14. Gosheger G., Gebert C., Ahrens H. et al. Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;450:164–71. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000223978.36831.39
15. Mittermayer F., Krepler P., Dominkus M. et al. Long-term followup of uncemented tumor endoprostheses for the lower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001;388:167–77. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200107000-00024
16. Aliev M.D., Teplyakov V., Sicheva L., Karpenko V. Modern orthopaedical treatment of metastatic lesion of long bones. 17th Annual Meeting of the EMSOS, Oslo, Norway, 9–11 June 2004.
17. Iwanowska B., Brągoszewska H., Mądzik J. et al. Imaging of complications after limb prostheses implantation in children with bone tumors. Pol J Radiol 2017;82:227–32. DOI: 10.12659/PJR.900644
18. Asavamongkolkul A., Eckardt J.J., Eilber F.R. et al. Endoprosthetic reconstruction for malignant upper extremity tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999;360:207–20. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199903000-00025
19. Muramatsu K., Fukano R., Ihara K. et al. Reconstruction of the proximal humerus by combined use of extracorporeally-irradiated osteochondral graft and free vascularized fibula following resection of Ewing sarcoma. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg 2010;63(12):2177–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2010.03.008
20. Tomasik P., Spindel J., Koczy B. et al. Clinical experience in the application of allogenic grafts from a bone tissue bank in the surgical treatment of tumor-like bone lesions. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2005;7(5):476–80.
21. Yin Q., Jiang Y., Xiao L. [Replacement of invert-type artificial total scapula and shoulder joint prosthesis for malignant tumor]. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 2007;21(3):240–3. (In Chinese).
22. Singh J.A., Sperling J., Schleck C. et al. Periprosthetic fractures associated with primary total shoulder arthroplasty and primary humeral head replacement. J Bone Jt Surg 2012;94(19):1777–85. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01945
23. Singh J.A., Sperling J.W., Cofield R.H. Ninety day mortality and its predictors after primary shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of 4,019 patients from 1976–2008. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011;12(1):231. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-231
24. Angst F., Pap G., Mannion A.F. et al. Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total shoulder arthroplasty: Usefulness and validity of subjective outcome measures. Arthritis Rheum 2004;51(5):819–28. DOI: 10.1002/art.20688
25. Zuckerman J.D., Scott A.J., Gallagher M.A. Hemiarthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy. J Shoulder Elb Surg 2000;9(3):169–72.
26. Dubina A., Shiu B., Gilotra M. et al.. What is the optimal reconstruction option after the resection of proximal humeral tumors? A systematic review. Open Orthop J 2017;11(1):203–11. DOI: 10.2174/1874325001711010203
27. Arman F. Schultergelenktotalprothese versus Hemiprothese. Zentralbl Chir 2003;128(1):17–21. DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-37366
28. Walch G., Boileau P., No l E. Shoulder arthroplasty: Evolving techniques and indications. Jt Bone Spine 2010;77(6):501–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2010.09.004
29. Lenarz C.J., Gobezie R. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Vis Exp 2011;53. DOI: 10.3791/2281
30. Campo-Aguirre R., San Román-Rodríguez E., Canales-Ibarra A. et al. [Reverse shoulder arthroplasty: complications and prevention]. Acta Ortop Mex 2013;27(2):128–32. (In Spanish).
31. Kassab M., Dumaine V., Babinet A. et al. [Twenty nine shoulder reconstructions after resection of the proximal humerus for neoplasm with mean 7-year follow-up]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2005;91(1):15–23. (In French). DOI: 10.1016/s0035-1040(05)84271-0
32. Gouin F., Creen V. Reconstruction following shoulder resection for bone tumor. Bull Cancer 2014;101(10):951–7. DOI: 10.1684/bdc.2014.2033
33. Boileau P., Moineau G., Roussanne Y., O’Shea K. Bony increased offset-reversed shoulder arthroplasty (BIO-RSA). JBJS Essen Surg Tech 2017;7(4):e37. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.17.00006
34. Микайлов И.М., Григорьев П.В., Пташников Д.А., Майков С.В. Результаты эндопротезирования плечевого сустава у больных c новообразованиями проксимального отдела плечевой кости. Травматология и ортопедия России 2014;27–35. Mikhailov I.M., Grigoriev P.V., Ptashnikov D.A., Maikov S.V. Results of shoulder joint replacement in patients with neoplasms of the proximal humerus. Travmatologiya i ortopediya Rossii = Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia 2014;27–35. (In Russ.).
35. Holton J., Yousri T., Arealis G., Levy O. The role of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in management of proximal humerus fractures with fracture sequelae: a systematic review of the literature. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2017; 9(1):6977. DOI: 10.4081/or.2017.6977
36. Cheung E., Willis M., Walker M. et al. Complications in reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(7):439–49.
37. Wall B., Nove-Josserand L., O’Connor D.P. et al. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:1476–85. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00666
38. Flurin P.-H., Marczuk Y., Janout M. et al. Comparison of outcomes using anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 2013;71(2):101–7.
39. Flurin P.-H., Roche C.P., Wright T.W. et al. A comparison and correlation of clinical outcome metrics in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 2015;73(1):S118–23.
40. Ferrel J.R., Trinh T.Q., Fischer R.A. Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Hemiarthroplasty for Proximal Humeral Fractures. J Orthop Trauma 2015;29(1):60–8. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000224
41. Letter H.P., Limback J., Wasyliw C. et al. Synovial cutaneous fistula complicating a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Radiol Case Reports 2016:11(2):98–101. DOI: 10.1016/j.radcr.2016.02.014
42. Potter B.K., Adams S.C., Pitcher J.D. et al. Proximal humerus reconstructions for tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467(4):1035–41. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0531-x
43. Kiet T.K., Feeley B.T., Naimark M. et al. Outcomes after shoulder replacement: comparison between reverse and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg 2015;24(2):179–85. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.06.039
44. Somerson J.S., Neradilek M.B., Hsu J.E. et al. Is there evidence that the outcomes of primary anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty are getting better? Int Orthop 2017;41(6):1235–44. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3443-0
Review
For citations:
Elkhov D.O., Erin D.A., Bukharov A.V., Filonenko E.V., Derzhavin V.A., Yadrina A.V., Shatalov A.M. Functional results in the surgical treatment of a tumor lesion of the proximal humerus with endoprosthetics. Bone and soft tissue sarcomas, tumors of the skin. 2022;14(3):20-25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/2219-4614-2022-14-3-20-25
Views:
349
Email this article 
