Long-term results of proximal femoral tumor endoprosthesis replacement after primary and metastatic tumors resection
- Р Р‡.МессенРТвЂВВВВВВВВжер
- РћРТвЂВВВВВВВВнокласснРСвЂВВВВВВВВРєРСвЂВВВВВВВВ
- LiveJournal
- Telegram
- ВКонтакте
- РЎРєРѕРїРСвЂВВВВВВВВровать ссылку
Full Text:
Abstract
Endoprosthetics of the hip joint allows provide early activation of the patient, in the first days after the surgery, to begin functional and psychosocial rehabilitation in the hospital, achieve good cosmetic and functional results, and continue conservative treatment, on time.
The study included 172 patients with primary bone sarcomas, metastatic lesions, benign bone tumors, who from March 1996 to December 2018 performed 194 primary and revision operations. In the study group of patients, 47.1% were diagnosed with a primary malignant tumor, 37.8% had metastatic lesion. The mean follow-up period was 80.87 months. The leading complication at the time of the endoprosthetics was late aseptic instability (Type IIB — 37.5%).
Primary and revision endoprosthetics survival after 5 years was 91.9%, after 10 years was 81.3%, after 15 years was 76.5%, after 20 years was 68% of patients. The average functional result on the MSTS scale after 6 months after primary and revision endoprosthetics was 72.6%, after 12 months 84.2%. Aseptic instability is the leading complication in the postoperative period 6.2%.
The introduction of innovative technological solutions in the design, materials of the endoprosthesis, will become a means of ensuring a further progressive decrease in the frequency of complications and increase the life of the implant.
About the Authors
A. V. SokolovskiiRussian Federation
115478, Moscow, Kashirskoye sh., 24.
V. A. Sokolovskii
Russian Federation
115478, Moscow, Kashirskoye sh., 24.
M. D. Aliev
Russian Federation
1125284, Moscow, 2nd Botkinsky p. 3.
References
1. Aliyev MD. Endoprotezirovaniye kak osnova onkoortopedii. Carkomy kostey, myagkikh tkaney i opukholi kozhi. 2010;(4):7-12 (In Russ.).
2. Aksnes LH, Bauer HC, Jebsen NL, Folleras G, Allert C, Haugen GS et al. Limb-sparing surgery preserves more function than amputation: a Scandinavian sarcoma group study of 118 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(6):786-794.
3. Grimer RJ, Aydin BK, Wafa H, Carter SR, Jeys L, Abudu A, Parry M. Very long-term outcomes after endoprosthetic replacement for malignant tumours of bone. Bone Joint J/ 2016;98-B:857-864.
4. Misaghi A, Goldin A, Awad M, Kulidjian AA. Osteosarcoma: a comprehensive review. SICOT J. 2018;4:12. https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2017028. Epub 2018 Apr 9. PMID: 29629690; PMCID: PMC5890448.
5. Thambapillary S, Rozalia Dimitriou, Kostantinos G. Makridis, Evangelos M. Fragkakis, Peter Bobak, Peter V. Giannoudis. Implant Longevity, Complications and Functional Outcome Following Proximal Femoral Arthroplasty for Musculoskeletal Tumors A Systematic Review. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2013;(28):1381-1385.
6. Janssen, Stein & W. G. Langerhuizen, David & H. Schwab, Joseph & Bramer, Jos. (2018). Outcome after reconstruction of proximal femoral tumors: A systematic review. Journal of Surgical Oncology. https://doi.org/org/10.1002/jso.25297.
7. Houdek MT, Watts CD, Wyles CC, Rose PS, Taunton MJ, Sim FH. Functional and oncologic outcome of cemented endoprosthesis for malignant proximal femoral tumors. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114(4):501-506. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24339. Epub 2016 Jun 28.
8. Sokolovski VA, Voloshin VP, Aliev MD, Zubikov VS, Saravanan SA, Martynenko DV, Nisichenko DV, Strelnikov KN. Total hip replacement for proximal femoral tumours: our midterm results. International Orthopaedics (SICOT). 2006;30:399-402.
9. Henderson ER, Keeney BJ, Pala E et al. The stability of the hip after the use of a proximal femoral endoprosthesis for oncological indications: analysis of variables relating to the patient and the surgical technique. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B:531-537.
10. Du Z, Tang S, Yang R, Tang X, Ji T, Guo W. Use of an artificial ligament decreases hip dislocation and improves limb function after total femoral prosthetic replacement following femoral tumor resection. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:1507-1514.
11. Jones KB, Griffin AM, Chandrasekar CR, Biau D, Babinet A, Deheshi B, Bell RS, Grimer RJ, Wunder JS, Ferguson PC. Patient-oriented functional results of total femoral endoprosthetic reconstruction following oncologic resection. J Surg Oncol. 2011;104:561-565. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.22003.
12. Sevelda F, Reinhard Schuh, Jochen Gerhard Hofstaetter, Martina Schinhan, Reinhard Windhager, Philipp Theodor Funovics. Total Femur Replacement After Tumor Resection: Limb Salvage. Usually Achieved But Complications and Failures are Common. 2015;473(6):2079-2087.
13. Gorter J, Ploegmakers JJW, Ten Have BLEF, Schreuder HWB, Jutte PC. The push-through total femoral prosthesis offers a functionalalternative to total femoral replacement: a case series. International Orthopaedics (SICOT). 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3467-5.
14. Sokolovskij AV, Sokolovskij VA, Badyrov RN, Aliev MD. Pervyj opyt diafizsohranyayushchego total'nogo endoprotezirovaniya bedrennoj kosti. Klinicheskij sluchaj. Sarkomy kostej, myagkih tkanej i opuholi kozhi. 2017;(3):43-49 (In Russ.).
15. Sewell MD, Spiegelberg BG, Hanna SA, Aston WJ, Bartlett W, Blunn GW, David LA, Cannon SR, Briggs TW. Total femoral endoprosthetic replacement following excision of bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg (Br.). 2009;91:1513-1520.
16. Thambapillary S, Rozalia Dimitriou, Kostantinos G Makridis, Evangelos M Fragkakis, Peter Bobak, Peter V Giannoudis. Implant Longevity, Complications and Functional Outcome Following Proximal Femoral Arthroplasty for Musculoskeletal Tumors A Systematic Review. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2013;28:1381-1385.
17. Stein J Janssen, David WG Langerhuizen, Joseph H Schwab, Jos AM Bramer. Outcome after reconstruction of proximal femoral tumors: A systematic review. J Surg Oncol. 2019;119:120-129.
18. Jacofsky DJ, Hedley AK. Fundamentals of revision hip arthprolasty. Slack Incorporated. 2014:35-65.
19. Berry DJ, von Knoch M, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS. Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(11):2456-2463.
20. Kelley SS, Lachiewicz PF, Hickman JM, Paterno SM. Relationship of femoral head and acetabular size to the prevalence of dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;(355):163-170.
21. Joseph L Finstein, Joseph J King, Edward J Fox, Christian M Ogilvie, Richard D Lackman. Bipolar Proximal Femoral Replacement Prostheses for Musculoskeletal Neoplasms. Clinical Orthopaedics And Related Research. 2007;(459):66-75.
22. Pellegrini VD Jr, Heiges BA, Bixler B, Lehman EB, Davis CM 3rd. Minimum ten-year results of primary bipolar hiparthroplasty for degenerative arthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1817-1825.
23. Menendez LR, Ahlmann ER, Kermani C, Gotha H. Endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplasms of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;450:46-51.
24. Chandrasekar CR, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Abudu AT. Modular endoprosthetic replacement for metastatic tumours of the proximal femur. J Orthop Surg Res. 2008;3:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-3-50. PubMed PMID: 18983677; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2614964.
Review
For citations:
Sokolovskii A.V., Sokolovskii V.A., Aliev M.D. Long-term results of proximal femoral tumor endoprosthesis replacement after primary and metastatic tumors resection. Bone and soft tissue sarcomas, tumors of the skin. 2019;11(3):5-15. (In Russ.)
ISSN 2782-3687 (Online)