Reoperation after surgery for bone metastasis of renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The prognosis of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has markedly improved with the advent of molecular targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, the therapeutic response in patients with bone metastasis remains low; therefore, surgery still plays a significant role in treatment of bone metastasis. It is important to maintain quality of life for patients with bone metastasis from RCC and avoid reoperation after surgery for bone metastasis. Therefore, we investigated the risk factors for reoperation after surgery in patients with bone metastasis from RCC. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 103 bones of 97 patients who underwent surgery for bone metastasis of RCC from 2001 to 2023 at our institutions. RESULTS: Reoperation was performed in 10 (9.7%) of 103 bones. There was no correlation between reoperation-free survival and any of the following variables: preoperative and postoperative radiotherapy, site of bone metastasis, indication for surgery (solitary bone metastasis or impending or pathologic fractures), surgical method (intramedullary nailing fixation, curettage, or en bloc resection), preoperative embolization, or survival. CONCLUSION: The risk of reoperation for bone metastasis of RCC does not appear to be based on the surgical method.

What Are the Complications, Reconstruction Survival, and Functional Outcomes of Modular Prosthesis and Allograft-prosthesis Composite for Proximal Femur Reconstruction in Children With Primary Bone Tumors?

BACKGROUND: Proximal femur reconstruction after bone tumor resection in children is a demanding surgery for orthopaedic oncologists because of the small bone size and possible limb-length discrepancy at the end of skeletal growth owing to physis loss. The most commonly used reconstruction types used for the proximal femur are modular prostheses and allograft-prosthesis composites. To our knowledge, there are no previous studies comparing the outcomes after modular prosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction of the proximal femur in children with primary bone tumors. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What was the cumulative incidence of reoperation for any reason after allograft-prosthesis composite and modular prosthesis reconstructions of the proximal femur in children with primary bone tumors? (2) What was the cumulative incidence of reconstruction removal or revision arthroplasty in those two treatment groups? (3) What complications occurred in those two treatment groups that were managed without further surgery or with surgery without reconstruction removal? METHODS: Between 2000 and 2021, 54 children with primary bone tumors underwent resection and reconstruction of the proximal femur at a single institution. During that time, allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction was used in very young children, in whom we prioritize bone stock preservation for future surgeries, and children with good response to chemotherapy, while modular prosthesis reconstruction was used in older children and children with metastatic disease at presentation and poor response to chemotherapy. We excluded three children in whom limb salvage was not possible and 11 children who underwent either reconstruction with free vascularized fibular graft and massive bone allograft (n = 3), an expandable prosthesis (n = 3), a massive bone allograft reconstruction (n = 2), a rotationplasty (n = 1), standard (nonmodular) prosthesis (n = 1), or revision of preexisting reconstruction (n = 1). Further, we excluded two children who were not treated surgically, three children with no medical or imaging records, and three children with no follow-up. All the remaining 32 children with reconstruction of the proximal femur (12 children treated with modular prosthesis and 20 children treated with allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction) were accounted for at a minimum follow-up time of 2 years. Children in the allograft-prosthesis group were younger at the time of diagnosis than those in the modular prosthesis group (median 8 years [range 1 to 16 years] versus 15 years [range 9 to 17 years]; p = 0.001]), and the follow-up in the allograft-prosthesis composite group was longer (median 5 years [range 1 to 23 years] versus 3 years [range 1 to 15 years]; p = 0.37). Reconstruction with hemiarthroplasty was performed in 19 of 20 children in the allograft-prosthesis composite group and in 9 of 12 children in the modular prosthesis group. A bipolar head was used in 16 of 19 children, and a femoral ceramic head without acetabular cup was used in 3 of 19 children in the allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction group. All 9 children in the modular prosthesis group were reconstructed with a bipolar hemiarthroplasty. Reconstruction with total arthroplasty was performed in one child in the allograft-prosthesis composite group and in three children in the modular prosthesis group. For both groups, we calculated the cumulative incidence of reoperation for any reason and the cumulative incidence of reconstruction removal or revision arthroplasty; we also reported qualitative descriptions of serious complications treated nonoperatively in both groups. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of any reoperation at 10 years did not differ between the groups with the numbers available (36% [95% confidence interval 15% to 58%] in the allograft-prosthesis composite group versus 28% [95% CI 5% to 58%] in the modular proximal femoral replacement group). The cumulative incidence of reconstruction removal or revision arthroplasty at 10 years likewise did not differ between the groups with the numbers available (10% [95% CI 2% to 28%] versus 12% [95% CI 0% to 45%], respectively). In the allograft-prosthesis composite group (20 children), hip instability (n = 3), nonunion (n = 2), fracture of the greater trochanter (n = 1), screw loosening (n = 1), limb-length discrepancy (n = 1), and coxalgia due to acetabular wear (n = 1) were treated surgically without reconstruction removal. Complications treated without surgery included resorption of the allograft at the trochanteric region (n = 4), fracture of the greater trochanter (n = 4), limb-length discrepancy (n = 6), and coxalgia due to acetabular wear (n = 2). In the modular prosthesis group (12 children), hip instability (n = 1), coxalgia due to acetabular wear (n = 1), and limb-length discrepancy (n = 1) were treated surgically without reconstruction removal. Complications treated without surgery included hip instability (n = 2), stress shielding (n = 6), infection (n = 1), sciatic nerve palsy (n = 1), and limb-length discrepancy (n = 3). CONCLUSION: Although the two groups of children were not directly comparable due to differences in age and clinical characteristics, both modular prosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions of the proximal femur after bone tumor resection appear to be reasonable options with similar revision-free survival and complications. Therefore, the type of reconstruction following proximal resection in children with bone sarcoma should be chosen taking into consideration factors such as patient age, bone size, implant availability, technical expertise, and the surgeon's preference. Although children treated with expandable prostheses were not included in this study, such prostheses may be useful in bridging the surgical defect while correcting residual limb-length discrepancies even though they face limitations such as small intramedullary diameter, short residual bone segments, as well as stress shielding, loosening, and breakage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

A reduction in tumor volume exceeding 65% predicts a good histological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with Ewing sarcoma.

OBJECTIVE: No consensus exists for tumor volume response criteria in patients with Ewing sarcoma. This study aimed to identify an optimal cutoff for predicting a good histological response by analyzing tumor volume changes and tumor necrosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 184 Ewing sarcoma patients, analyzing tumor volume changes before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were divided into two groups based on histological response: good (tumor necrosis ≥ 95%) and poor (tumor necrosis < 95%) responders. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) method was used to determine the optimal thresholds for predicting the histological response. Additionally, the prognostic value of this cutoff for relapse-free survival was assessed. RESULTS: Out of 184 patients, 83 (45%) had tumor necrosis ≥ 95%, while 101 (55%) had tumor necrosis < 95%. ROC analysis identified the optimal cutoff for a good histological response as over 65% tumor volume reduction (AUC = 0.69; p < 0.001). Patients with volume reduction of ≥ 65% had a higher likelihood of a good histological response than those with lesser reductions (p = 0.004; odds ratio = 2.61). Multivariable analysis indicated a correlation between poor histological response and reduced relapse-free survival (hazard ratio = 2.17; p = 0.01), while tumor volume reduction itself did not impact survival. CONCLUSION: We reported that a tumor volume reduction of ≥ 65% was able to predict a good histological response in Ewing sarcoma patients. We recommend preoperative tumor volume assessment to identify patients at greater risk for poor histological response who could benefit from more intensive chemotherapy protocols or additional radiotherapy.

Malawer type I/V proximal humerus reconstruction after tumor resection: a systematic review.

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 6 articles), allograft prosthesis composites (APCs) (236 patients in 12 articles), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (141 patients in 10 articles), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (33 patients in 4 articles), claviculo-pro-humero (CPH) technique (51 patients in 6 articles), and cement spacer (207 patients in 4 articles). Weighted mean MSTS scores were: modular prosthesis (73.8%), osteoarticular allograft (74.4%), APCs (79.2%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (77.0%), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (76.1%), CPH technique (75.1%), and cement spacer (69.1%). Weighted 5-year reconstruction survival rates were modular prosthesis (85.4%), osteoarticular allograft (67.6%), APCs (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 CPH technique. Major complications included shoulder joint instability: modular prosthesis (26.2%), osteoarticular allograft (41.5%), APCs (33.9%), reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (17%), composite reverse shoulder total arthroplasty (6.1%), CPH 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.

Lengthening Patients Previously Treated for Massive Lower Limb Reconstruction for Bone Tumors with the PRECICE 2 Nail.

The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of the PRECICE 2® nail in the treatment of lower limb length discrepancy in patients with a history of bone tumors. This study reports on outcomes, complications, and the safety of the PRECICE 2 limb lengthening nail in a cohort of pediatric patients with limb length discrepancy after surgery for bone tumors. Seventeen patients were treated with intramedullary magnetic nails. The average patient age at the time of surgery was 19 (range 11-32). The PRECICE 2 nail was used on 14 femurs (6 retrograde and 8 anterograde) and 3 tibias. The average consolidation time was 141 days (range 50-360) with a mean CI of 31 ± 12 days/cm. The ASAMI bone score showed 14 (82%) excellent results, 1 (6%) good result, and 2 (12%) poor results. The ASAMI functional score showed 13 (84.6%) excellent results, 3 (11.5%) good results, and 1 (3.8%) fair result. Patients treated with chemotherapy for bone cancer did not show any increase in distraction time or consolidation time. A total of 3 (17%) problems, 1 obstacle (5.5%), and 1 complication (5.5%) were encountered in our case series. The PRECICE 2 nail allows for effective and accurate lengthening preserving the range of motion in patients treated for bone tumors.

lsolated acetabular revisions of articular surface replacement (ASR) XL implants with highly porous titanium cups and Delta bearings.

INTRODUCTION: Articular surface replacement (ASR) XL implants exhibit higher-than-expected revision rates, blood ion concentrations and soft tissue lesions, making revisions troublesome and potentially unsatisfying. Appropriate techniques and outcomes in ASR XL revisions are rarely documented. The aims of this study were the assessments of pre-revision data, post-revision clinical and radiographic outcomes and ion levels in isolated acetabular ASR XL revisions performed using highly porous titanium cups and Delta ceramic articulations. METHODS: 18 isolated acetabular ASR XL revisions in 16 patients were performed using Ti-Por cups (Adler Ortho, Milan, Italy) and Delta bearings (CeramTec, Plochingen, Germany). Pre-revision demographic, clinical, radiological and implant-related features were assessed. Clinical and radiographic parameters (cup positioning, osseointegration) after revisions were evaluated at a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Ion concentrations in blood and urine were collected in pre-revision setting and 1 year after revision. RESULTS: 4 complications occurred in 3 different revisions (16.7%), 1 dislocation, 2 infections, 1 psoas impingement. No re-revision was performed at 5 years (1 scheduled arthroscopy). Good clinical outcomes were achieved (HHS score: 88.3 ± 9.2). All the cups showed reassuring signs of osseointegration (>3 parameters). Blood ion concentrations significantly decreased: patients with Co blood ion concentration over the threshold (7 µg/l) decreased from 76.5% to 0%. No pre-revision or intraoperative data influenced the revision outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Highly porous titanium cups and Delta ceramic articulations provided reliable mid-term clinical and radiographic outcomes in isolated acetabular ASR XL revisions. Ion concentrations significantly decreased. Multicentre prospective controlled studies are required to confirm these preliminary outcomes.

In Vivo Damage of the Head-Neck Junction in Hard-on-Hard Total Hip Replacements: Effect of Femoral Head Size, Metal Combination, and 12/14 Taper Design.

Recently, concerns have been raised about the potential effect of head-neck junction damage products at the local and systemic levels. Factors that may affect this damage process have not been fully established yet. This study investigated the possible correlations among head-neck junction damage level, implant design, material combination, and patient characteristics. Head-neck junctions of 148 retrieved implants were analysed, including both ceramic-on-ceramic (N = 61) and metal-on-metal (N = 87) bearings. In all cases, the male taper was made of titanium alloy. Damage was evaluated using a four-point scoring system based on damage morphology and extension. Patient age at implantation, implantation time, damage risk factor, and serum ion concentration were considered as independent potential predicting variables. The damage risk factor summarises head-neck design characteristics and junction loading condition. Junction damage correlated with both implantation time and damage factor risk when the head was made of ceramic. A poor correlation was found when the head was made of cobalt alloy. The fretting-corrosion phenomenon seemed mainly mechanically regulated, at least when cobalt alloy components were not involved. When a component was made of cobalt alloy, the role of chemical phenomena increased, likely becoming, over implantation time, the damage driving phenomena of highly stressed junctions.