Evolution of surgical treatment for sarcomas of proximal humerus in children: retrospective review at a single institute over 30 years.

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus, although a common site for primary bone sarcomas, finds scant mention in literature as far as options and outcome of reconstruction in the skeletally immature skeleton are concerned. Reconstruction after resection of proximal humeral sarcomas in the immature skeleton poses specific challenges to the surgeon, and there has been a definite evolution of these techniques over the decades. We studied the evolution and compared the outcome of various techniques for such reconstruction over 3 decades at a single institution. METHODS: All 61 children younger than 13 years of age and treated for a primary sarcoma of the proximal humerus at Department of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute, from 1976 to 2006 were studied for techniques of resection and reconstruction, complications, surgical procedures needed during follow up, and functional and radiologic outcomes during and at final follow-up. The functional outcomes after various procedures were compared using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scoring system. RESULTS: A definite trend from amputation in the first decade, to the use of nonbiological reconstruction (endoprostheses, K nail cement spacer) in the second and biological reconstruction (vascular proximal fibula autograft, osteoarticular allograft, and allograft prosthesis composite) in the third decade was seen. There was a trend of improvement in the functional outcome over the 3 decades, although the complication rates and the need for repeated surgical procedures remained a major problem in all the techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Reconstruction of proximal humerus after resection for sarcomas is a challenging task. Although endoprostheses do have a definite role to play in reconstruction of proximal humerus in children, the use of biological techniques in well-selected patients is being carried out more often now than before, as is reflected in this series, with a potentially improved functional outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-Retrospective comparative study.