Larger stem to bone diameter ratio predicts lower cemented endoprosthesis failure.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: With continued advances in treatment options, patients with endoprosthetic reconstruction are living longer and consequently relying upon their devices for a longer duration. Major causes of endoprosthesis failure include aseptic loosening and mechanical failure. In the setting of tumor resection, loss of bone stock and use of radiation therapy increase the risk for these complications. As such, considerations of remaining native bone and stem length and diameter may be increasingly important. We asked the following questions: (1) What was the overall rate of endoprosthesis failure at a minimum of 5-year follow-up? (2) Does resection length increase implant failure rates? (3) Does implant size and its ratio to cortical width of bone alter implant failure rates? METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patient outcomes at a single institution between the years of 1999-2022 who underwent cemented endoprosthetic reconstruction at the hip or knee and identified 150 patients. Of these 150, 55 had a follow-up of greater than 5 years and were used for analysis. Radiographs of these patients at time of surgery were assessed and measured for resection length, bone diameter, stem diameter, and remaining bone length. Resection percentage, and stem to bone diameter ratios were then calculated and their relationship to endoprosthesis failure were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients in this cohort had a mean age of 55.8, and mean follow-up of 59.96 months. There were 78 distal femoral replacements (52%), 16 proximal femoral replacements (10.7%), and 56 proximal tibial replacements (37.3%). There were five patients who experienced aseptic loosening and six patients who experienced mechanical failure. Patients with implant failure had a smaller mean stem to bone diameter (36% vs. 44%; p = 0.002). A stem to bone diameter of 40% appeared to be a breaking point between success and failure in this series, with 90% of patients with implant failure having a stem: bone ratio less than 40%. Stem to bone ratio less than 40% increased risk for failure versus stems that were at least 40% the diameter of bone (6/19 [31.6%] vs. 0/36 [0%]; odds ratio 0.68; p < 0.001). Resection length did not appear to have an impact on the rates of aseptic loosening and mechanical failure in this series. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this series suggests a benefit to using stems with a larger diameter when implanting cemented endoprostheses at the hip or knee. Stems which were less than 40% the diameter of bone were substantially more likely to undergo implant failure.

Cemented-augmented fixation of metastatic humeral lesions without segmental bone loss results in reliable outcomes.

Background: Treatment of metastatic lesions to the humerus is dependent on patient's pain, lesion size and location, and post-operative functional goals. Surgical options include plate or nail fixation [open reduction internal fixation (ORIF)], or endoprosthetic replacement (EPR), with cement augmentation. The objective of this study was to perform a single institution retrospective analysis of outcomes by method of reconstruction, tumor volume, and pathologic diagnosis. Methods: The records of 229 consecutive patients treated surgically for appendicular metastatic disease from 2005-2018 at our musculoskeletal oncology center were retrospectively reviewed following institutional review board (IRB) approval. Indications for surgical treatment at the humerus included patients who presented with impending and displaced pathologic fractures. Results: Sixty patients (34 male, 26 female) with a mean age of 62.9±12.2 were identified who were treated surgically at the proximal (n=21), diaphyseal (n=29), or distal (n=10) humerus. Forty-nine (82%) patients presented with displaced pathologic fractures. The remaining eleven patients had a mean Mirels score of 9.5. There was no difference in overall complication rate between EPR or ORIF [4/36 (11%) versus 2/24 (8%); P=0.725]. Mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores were 83% for both EPR and ORIF, with no differences in subgroup analyses at the proximal, diaphyseal, or distal humerus. Patients with cortical destruction on anterior posterior (AP) and lateral imaging were at increased risk for mechanical failure [2/6 (33%) versus 0/18 (0%), P=0.015]. Conclusions: In conclusion, when pathologic pattern permits, cement-augmented fixation allows for stabilization of pathologic bone, while minimizing risk of soft-tissue detachment, while EPR resulted in similar outcomes in patients with more extensive bone destruction. Increased tumor volume was associated with lower MSTS scores.