RESUMO
PURPOSE: The patients with femoral metastasis in the inter- or subtrochanteric area could be treated with intramedullary nailing or prosthetic reconstruction, however, it is controversial which surgical treatment could offer less complications and implant failure. Our purpose was to define the risk of complications and implant survival in patients treated with intramedullary nailing or prosthetic reconstruction. METHODS: We analyzed studies reporting the risk of complications, reoperations and removal of the implant in patients treated with intramedullary nailing, hemiarthroplasty, arthroplasty or megaprosthesis. RESULTS: We analyzed 27 studies (1346 patients) reporting patients treated with intramedullary nail (51%), hemiarthroplasty (15%), arthroplasty (2%), megaprosthesis with (25%) or without (7%) acetabular component. No difference was found in the overall risk of complications between patients treated with intramedullary nailing 6%, hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty 7% and megaprosthesis 11% (p = 0.23). However, patients treated with megaprosthesis had increased risk of reoperation due to infection (70%), compared to the patients treated with intramedullary nail (13%), and patients treated with hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty (23%) (p = 0.02). Revision due to disease progression was required in 61% of the patients treated with intramedullary nail, but not in patients treated with hemiarthroplasty, total arthroplasty, and megaprosthesis (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Patients treated with megaprosthesis had higher risk of reoperation due to infection, while patients treated with intramedullary nailing had higher risk of revision due to disease progression. Regarding patients treated with megaprosthesis, the risk of reoperation due to dislocation was higher in those treated with acetabular component.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Several reconstruction methods exist for Malawer type I/V proximal humerus reconstruction after bone tumor resection; however, no consensus has been reached regarding the preferred methods. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on various types of proximal humerus oncologic reconstruction methods. We collected data on postoperative functional outcomes assessed based on Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores, 5-year reconstruction survival rates, and complications. We calculated each reconstruction's weighted mean based on the sample size and standard errors. Complications were categorized based on the Henderson classification. Based on these integrated data, our primary objective is to propose an optimal strategy for proximal humerus reconstruction after bone tumor resection. RESULTS: We examined various reconstruction techniques, including modular prosthesis (752 patients in 21 articles), osteoarticular allograft (142 patients in six articles), allograft prosthesis composites (236 patients in 12 articles), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (141 patients in 10 articles), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (33 patients in four articles), claviculo-pro-humero technique (51 patients in six articles), and cement spacer (207 patients in four articles). Weighted mean MSTS scores were: modular prosthesis (73.8%), osteoarticular allograft (74.4%), allograft prosthesis composites (79.2%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (77.0%), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (76.1%), claviculo-pro-humero technique (75.1%), and cement spacer (69.1%). Weighted 5-year reconstruction survival rates were modular prosthesis (85.4%), osteoarticular allograft (67.6%), allograft prosthesis composites (85.2%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (84.1%), and cement spacer (88.0%). Reconstruction survival data was unavailable for composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty and claviculo-pro-humero technique. Major complications included shoulder joint instability: modular prosthesis (26.2%), osteoarticular allograft (41.5%), allograft prosthesis composites (33.9%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (17%), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (6.1%), claviculo-pro-humero technique (2.0%), and cement spacer (8.7%). Aseptic loosening of the prosthesis occurred: modular prosthesis (3.9%) and reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (5.7%). Allograft fracture was observed in 54.9% of patients with osteoarticular allograft. CONCLUSION: The complication profiles differed among reconstruction methods. Weighted mean MSTS scores exceeded 70% in all methods except cement spacer, and the 5-year reconstruction survival rate surpassed 80% for all methods except osteoarticular allograft. Proximal humerus reconstruction after bone tumor resection should consider potential complications and patients' individual factors.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: There is a lack of consensus regarding the best type of reconstruction of the proximal femur following bone tumor resection. The objective of this study was to analyze the complication risks, implant survival, and functional outcomes following modular prosthesis (MP) and allograft-prosthesis composite (APC) reconstruction of the proximal femur after primary bone tumor resections. METHODS: We performed a search in the PubMed and Scopus libraries, obtaining 1 843 studies. We included studies reporting functional outcomes, complications, and implant survival of proximal femur reconstruction with MP or APC following primary bone tumor resection with a 2-year minimum follow-up. We excluded studies analyzing metastatic patients or studies with pooled data in which it was impossible to separate the data of patients with primary bone tumors from those with bone metastases. RESULTS: We analyzed 18 studies (483 patients) reporting on 234 (48%) patients with MP reconstruction and 249 (52%) patients with APC reconstruction. The risk of complications was similar in patients with MP reconstruction (29%; 95% CI [0.11; 0.47]) and APC reconstruction (36%; 95% CI [0.24; 0.47]) (p = 0.48). Implant survival following MP reconstruction ranged from 81 to 86% at 5 years, 75 to 86% at 10 years, and 82% at 15 years. Implant survival following APC reconstruction ranged from 86 to 100% at 5 years and 86% at 10 years, and 86% at 15 years. Functional outcomes following MP reconstruction and APC reconstruction ranged from 24.0 to 28.3 and from 21.9 to 27.8, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with primary bone tumor of the proximal femur who underwent MP or APC reconstruction seem to have similar complication risks, implant survival, and functional outcomes.
