Non-neoplastic indications and outcomes of the proximal and distal femur megaprosthesis: a critical review
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: Megaprosthesis or endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal and distal femur is a well-established modality for treatment of tumors. The indications for megaprosthesis have been expanded to the treatment of some non-neoplastic conditions of the knee and hip, with the severe bone loss associated with failed arthroplasty, communited fractures in the elderly with poor bone quality, and resistant non-union. Th aim of this study is to find out whether megaprosthesis of the knee and hip is successful in the treatment of non-neoplastic condtions. The study comprises a review of the indications, complications, and outcomes of megaprosthesis of the proximal and distal femur in non-neoplastic conditions of the knee and hip joints. Methods: We extensively reviewed the literature on non-neoplastic indications for megaprosthesis of the proximal and distal femur after performing a detailed search of the Pubmed database using the medical subject heading (MeSH) terms ‘proximal femur replacement’ or ‘distal femur replacement’ and ‘hip or knee megaprosthesis.’ The data obtained after the structured search were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The frequency distribution of the demographic data, indications, complications, and outcome was calculated. Result: We included ten studies (seven proximal femur replacement and three distal femur replacement) of 245 proximal femur and 54 distal femur mega prostheses for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions. Bone loss in failed arthroplasty, either due to periprosthetic fracture or deep infection, was the most common indication for megaprosthesis. Dislocation was the most common complication after proximal femur megaprosthesis, and infection was the leading cause of complications after distal femur megaprosthesis. Conclusion: Megaprosthesis for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions around the distal and proximal femur is a viable option for limb salvage, with an acceptable long-term outcome. Although the complications and survival rates of megaprosthesis in non-neoplastic conditions are inferior to a primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee but are comparable or better than the mega prosthetic replacement in the neoplastic conditions. Proximal femoral megaprosthesis has higher dislocation rates and requirement for revision compared to distal femoral megaprosthesis. However, the proximal femoral megaprosthesis has lower rates of infection, periprosthetic fractures, and soft tissue complications, as compared to distal femoral megaprosthetic replacement. Both associated with aseptic loosening but not statistically significant.
Abstract
Purpose: Megaprosthesis or endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal and distal femur is a well-established modality for treatment of tumors. The indications for megaprosthesis have been expanded to the treatment of some non-neoplastic conditions of the knee and hip, with the severe bone loss associated with failed arthroplasty, communited fractures in the elderly with poor bone quality, and resistant non-union. Th aim of this study is to find out whether megaprosthesis of the knee and hip is successful in the treatment of non-neoplastic condtions. The study comprises a review of the indications, complications, and outcomes of megaprosthesis of the proximal and distal femur in non-neoplastic conditions of the knee and hip joints. Methods: We extensively reviewed the literature on non-neoplastic indications for megaprosthesis of the proximal and distal femur after performing a detailed search of the Pubmed database using the medical subject heading (MeSH) terms ‘proximal femur replacement’ or ‘distal femur replacement’ and ‘hip or knee megaprosthesis.’ The data obtained after the structured search were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The frequency distribution of the demographic data, indications, complications, and outcome was calculated. Result: We included ten studies (seven proximal femur replacement and three distal femur replacement) of 245 proximal femur and 54 distal femur mega prostheses for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions. Bone loss in failed arthroplasty, either due to periprosthetic fracture or deep infection, was the most common indication for megaprosthesis. Dislocation was the most common complication after proximal femur megaprosthesis, and infection was the leading cause of complications after distal femur megaprosthesis. Conclusion: Megaprosthesis for treatment of non-neoplastic conditions around the distal and proximal femur is a viable option for limb salvage, with an acceptable long-term outcome. Although the complications and survival rates of megaprosthesis in non-neoplastic conditions are inferior to a primary arthroplasty of the hip and knee but are comparable or better than the mega prosthetic replacement in the neoplastic conditions. Proximal femoral megaprosthesis has higher dislocation rates and requirement for revision compared to distal femoral megaprosthesis. However, the proximal femoral megaprosthesis has lower rates of infection, periprosthetic fractures, and soft tissue complications, as compared to distal femoral megaprosthetic replacement. Both associated with aseptic loosening but not statistically significant.
참고문헌 (29)
- Al-Taki MM, "Quality of life following proximal femor replacement using a modular system in revision THA", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 469, pp.470~475 (2011)
- Calori GM, "Megaprosthesis in post-traumatic and periprosthetic large bone defects : issues to consider", Injury, 45(6), pp.S105~S110 (2014)
- Calori GM, "Megaprosthesis in large bone defects: opportunity or chimaera?", Injury, 45(2), pp.388~393 (2014)
- Capanna R, "What was the survival of megaprostheses in lower limb reconstructions after tumor resections?", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 473(3), pp.820~830 (2015)
- Chandrasekar CR, "Modular endoprosthetic replacement for tumours of the proximal femur", J Bone Joint Surg (Br), 91(B), pp.108~112 (2009)
- Dean BJ, "Modular endoprosthetic replacement for failed internal fixation of the proximal femur following trauma", Int Orthop, 36(4), pp.731~734 (2012)
- Fakler JK, "Is distal femoral replacement an adequate therapeutic option after complex fractures of the distal femur?", Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Unfallchirurgie, 151(2), pp.173~179 (2013)
- Gosheger G, "Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 450, pp.164~171 (2006)
- Gottsauner-Wolf F, "Tendons attached to prostheses by tendon-bone block fixation: an experimental study in dogs", J Orthop Res, 12, pp.814~821 (1994)
- Grammatopoulos G, "Five-year outcome of proximal femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasty for non-tumour indications", J Bone Joint Surg, 98(11), pp.1463~1470 (2016)
- Henderson ER, "Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses : retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 93, pp.418~429 (2011)
- Henderson ER, "Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses : retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review", J Bone Joint Surg, 93(5), pp.418~429 (2011)
- Jeys LM, "Endoprosthetic reconstruction for the treatment of musculoskeletal tumors of the appendicular skeleton and pelvis", J Bone Joint Surg A, 90(6), pp.1265~1271 (2008)
- Korim MT, "Systematic review of proximal femoral arthroplasty for non-neoplastic conditions", J Arthroplast, 29(11), pp.2117~2121 (2014)
- Korim MT, "A systematic review of endoprosthetic replacement for non-tumour indications around the knee joint", Knee, 20(6), pp.367~375 (2013)
- Lamagni T, "Epidemiology and burden of prosthetic joint infections", J Antimicrob Chemother, 69(1), pp.i5~i10 (2014)
- Malkani AL, "Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders", J Bone Joint Surg, 77(3), pp.351~356 (1995)
- McLean AL, "Femoral replacement for salvage of periprosthetic fracture around a total hip replacement", Injury, 43(7), pp.1166~1169 (2012)
- Menendez LR, "Endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplasms of the proximal femur", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 450, pp.46~51 (2006)
- Parvizi J, "Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 420, pp.169~175 (2004)
- Parvizi J, "Proximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 89, pp.1036~ (2007)
- Racano A, "High infection rate outcomes in long-bone tumor surgery with endoprosthetic reconstruction in adults : a systematic review", Clin Orthop Relat Res, 471(6), pp.2017~2027 (2013)
- Shih S, "Proximal femoral megaprosthesis for failed total hip arthroplasty", Chang Keng I Hsueh Chang Gung Med J, 30(1), pp.73~ (2007)
- Sim FH, "Hip salvage by proximal femoral replacement", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 63, pp.1228~1239 (1981)
- Vaishya R, "Treatment of resistant nonunion of supracondylar fractures femur by megaprosthesis", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 19(7), pp.1137~1140 (2011)
- Vaishya R, "Periprosthetic subtrochanteric femoral fracture in a megaprosthesis of the knee", Chin J Traumatol, 16(5), pp.314~315 (2013)
- Vertesich K, "Distal femoral reconstruction following failed total knee arthroplasty is accompanied with risk for complication and reduced joint function", BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 20(1), pp.47~ (2019)
- Viste A, "Proximal femoral replacement in contemporary revision total hip arthroplasty for severe femoral bone loss : a review of outcomes", J Bone Joint Surg, 99(3), pp.325~329 (2017)
- Windhager R, "Megaprostheses in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the knee joint : indication, technique, results and review of literature", Int Orthop, 40(5), pp.935~943 (2016)