What Is the Long-term Survivorship of Primary and Revision Cemented Distal Femoral Replacements for Limb Salvage of Patients With Sarcoma?

BACKGROUND: Cemented endoprosthetic reconstruction after resection of primary bone sarcomas has been in common use for decades. Although multiple studies have reported the survivorship of primary endoprostheses, implant survivorship after revision surgery is less well established. Given that earlier advances in systemic therapy improved survival of patients with sarcoma, the usage of revision endoprostheses can be expected to increase and, as such, understanding revision implant survivorship will help to inform patient and surgeon expectations. Additionally, as new implants are developed that allow alternative reconstruction options, a normative dataset establishing accurate expectations for revision cemented endoprostheses is a critical benchmark by which to measure progress. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the implant survivorship free of all-cause revision for primary and revision cemented distal femoral replacements (DFRs) used in the treatment of malignant or benign tumors? (2) What are the most common indications for revision of primary and revision DFRs in an oncology population with mean follow-up of more than 10 years? (3) How does the indication for revision of a primary DFR affect the subsequent risk for and type of revision DFR complication? (4) What patient, tumor, or implant characteristics are associated with improved survivorship free of revision in cemented DFRs used in patients treated initially for primary malignant or benign tumors? METHODS: This was a retrospective, comparative study using our institution's longitudinally-maintained database of 806 cemented endoprostheses starting in 1980 and assessed through December 31, 2018. In all, 365 DFRs were inserted during this time, but 14% (51 of 365) were placed for nonprimary bone tumors and 1% (5 of 365) were cementless reconstructions, leaving 309 cemented DFRs. Seventy-one percent (218 of 309) were primary implants and 29 percent (91 of 309) were revision implants (used to revise a prior DFR in all patients). During this time period, our strong bias was to use cemented stems and, thus, nearly all of our patients had cemented stems. Six percent (13 of 218) of primary DFRs were implanted more than 2 years before the study end; however, they lacked 2 years of follow-up data and, thus, were considered lost to follow-up, leaving 205 implants in the primary DFR analysis group. Only the first revision after primary DFR revision surgery was included in the revision cohort analysis. Thirty-two percent (29 of 91) of revision DFRs were second or more revision patients and were excluded, leaving 62 implants in the revision analysis group. Most patients in both groups were men (57% [117 of 205] for primary and 71% [44 of 62] for revision) who had been diagnosed with osteosarcoma (75% [153 of 205] and 73% [45 of 62] for primary and revision, respectively). The primary cohort had mean age of 26 ± 16 years with a mean follow-up of 136 ± 122 months, and the revision cohort had mean age of 31 ± 13 years (p = 0.02) with 141 ± 101 months of follow-up. Study endpoints included all-cause implant revision and cause-specific revision for soft tissue complications, aseptic loosening, structural complications (defined as periprosthetic or implant fracture), infection, or tumor progression. Planned surgery for implant lengthening procedures was excluded. Implant survivorship free from all-cause revision was calculated using a competing risk (cumulative incidence) estimator with death as a competing risk. A log-rank test using chi-square analysis was used to evaluate the differences in implant survivorship between primary DFRs and first revisions. The cause-specific incidences of implant revision were tabulated for primary and revision DFRs. Cox regression analysis investigated the odds of subsequent all-cause revision surgery for revision cemented DFRs based on the primary implant complication. A binary logistic regression analysis using age, gender, indication for revision, tumor type, infection, perioperative chemotherapy, and radiation was performed to identify factors associated with a second DFR reoperation. Relative effect sizes are reported as ORs. RESULTS: The revision DFR cohort had a shorter mean survival to all-cause revision than the primary cohort (mean 10 years [95% CI 7 to 12] versus 18 years [95% CI 15 to 20]; p < 0.001). The most common complications necessitating revision for revision implants were periprosthetic or implant fracture in 37% (23 of 62) and aseptic loosening in 15% (9 of 62), and the type of primary implant complication was not associated with risk of subsequent all-cause revision surgery for revision implants. Stem diameter less than 15 mm was associated with repeat all-cause revision in cemented revision DFRs after controlling for resection length, stem length, implant fabrication (custom or modular), and presence of a porous collar (OR 4 [95% CI 1 to 17]; p = 0.03). No other parameters that we explored, including patient age, gender, chemoradiation history, or primary tumor diagnosis, were associated with repeat revision surgery. CONCLUSION: Understanding modifiable factors that can improve revision DFR survival is critical to achieving long-term limb salvage for patients with tumors around the knee. Our data suggest that utilizing implants with the largest possible stems-or at a minimum increasing the stem size over the primary implant-is important to revision cemented DFR survivorship and is an important part of our revision practice. Improving revision implants' resistance to aseptic loosening through designs that resist torsion (a common mode of cemented fixation failure)-such as with the use of custom cross-pin fabrication-may be one method to improve survivorship. Another will be improved implant metallurgy that is resistant to fatigue fracture. Next steps may include understanding the optimal ratio of femoral diaphyseal width to implant diameter in patients where anatomic constraints preclude the insertion of cemented stems 15 mm or more in diameter. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Is High-dose Radiation Therapy Associated With Early Revision Due to Aseptic Loosening in Patients With a Sarcoma of the Lower Extremities Reconstructed With a Cemented Endoprosthesis?

BACKGROUND: The durability of endoprostheses after limb salvage surgery is influenced by surgical factors (resection length, implant location, and residual bone quality), implant design (modular versus custom design, rotating versus fixed hinge, coating, collars, and the use of cross pins), and host factors (patient's immune status, activity levels, and age). In general, radiation therapy increases the risk of fractures, infection, delayed wound healing, and impaired osseointegration. Several studies have shown exposure to radiation to be associated with higher endoprosthesis revision rates and higher periprosthetic infection rates, but results are inconsistent. Although radiation therapy is not routinely used in the treatment of many bone sarcomas in current practice, it is still used in high doses after resection and prosthetic reconstruction in patients who have Ewing sarcoma with close or positive margins and in patients with soft tissue sarcoma. It is also used in varying doses after prosthetic reconstruction in patients with myeloma or bone metastasis after resection of periarticular destructive tumors. These patients may be at an increased risk of complications due to their radiation exposure, but this is a difficult question to study given the rarity of these diagnoses and poor overall survival of these patients. We therefore leveraged a large, longitudinally collected, 40-year endoprosthesis database that included patients who received radiation to the extremity for many bone and soft tissue sarcomas to investigate the association between preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy and endoprosthesis survival. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is receiving preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy in low or high doses for the treatment of bone or soft tissue malignancy of the lower extremities associated with decreased implant survivorship free from amputation or revision due to any cause? (2) Is receiving preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy in low or high doses for the treatment of bone or soft tissue malignancy of the lower extremities associated with decreased implant survivorship free from revision specifically due to aseptic loosening? (3) Is receiving preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy for the treatment of Ewing sarcoma of the femur specifically associated with decreased implant survivorship free from revision specifically due to aseptic loosening? METHODS: This was a retrospective, comparative study using our institution's database of 822 endoprostheses. Between 1980 and 2019, we treated 541 patients with primary cemented endoprostheses of the extremities. Of those patients, 8% (45 of 541) were excluded due to unknown radiation status, 3% (17 of 541) because of prior failed allograft, 15% (83 of 541) due to metastatic disease from a carcinoma, 1% (6 of 541) due to a nononcologic diagnosis, 4% (20 of 541) due to benign tumor diagnosis, 16% (87 of 541) due to upper extremity tumor location, 9% (49 of 541) due to not receiving chemotherapy, and 3% (14 of 541) due to expandable prostheses. Of the remaining 220 patients, 6% (13) were considered missing because they did not have 2 years of follow-up and did not reach a study endpoint. No patients had surgery within the last 2 years of the study end date. In all, 207 patients met inclusion criteria and were eligible for analysis. Patients who had received radiation to the lower extremities at any point in their treatment course were included in the radiation group and were compared with patients who did not receive radiation. For patients where radiation dose was available, the radiation group was subdivided into a low-dose (≤ 3000 cGy) and high-dose (> 3000 cGy) group. Revision surgery was defined as any surgery necessitating removal or replacement of the tibial or femoral stem. The complications necessitating revision or amputation were poor wound healing, aseptic loosening, implant breakage, deep infection, and tumor progression. The primary outcome of interest was implant survival free from revision or amputation due to any cause. The secondary outcome of interest was implant survival free from revision or amputation specifically due to aseptic loosening. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were generated with implant survival free from revision or amputation as the endpoint and patient death as a competing risk. A log-rank test was used to identify differences in survivorship between the patients who received radiation and those who did not. Multivariate regression was used to identify factors associated with decreased implant survival. An odds ratio was used to determine relative effect size among the factors associated with decreased implant survival. RESULTS: The mean implant survival time for patients who did not receive radiation was 18.3 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.4 to 21.3) whereas the mean implant survival time for patients who received low- and high-dose radiation were 19.1 years (95% CI 14.5 to 23.7; p = 0.59) and 13.8 years (95% CI 8.2 to 19.5; p = 0.65), respectively. The mean implant survival free from revision for aseptic loosening for patients who did not receive radiation was 27.1 years (95% CI 24.1 to 30.1) whereas the mean implant survival for patients who received low- and high-dose radiation were 24.1 years (95% CI 19.1 to 29.1; p = 0.34) and 16.4 years (95% CI 10.6 to 22.2; p = 0.01), respectively. Patients who received high-dose radiation had decreased 5-year implant survivorship free from amputation or revision due to aseptic loosening (73% [95% CI 44% to 89%]) compared with patients who did not receive radiation (95% [95% CI 90% to 99%]; p = 0.01). For patients treated for Ewing sarcoma of the femur, the 5-year implant survival free from amputation or revision due to aseptic loosening for patients who did not receive radiation (100% [95% CI 100% to 100%]) was no different compared with patients who received radiation (71% [95% CI 35% to 90%]; p = 0.56). CONCLUSION: The results of this study may apply to scenarios where radiation is used, such as Ewing sarcoma with positive margins or local recurrence and after prosthetic reconstruction in patients with myeloma or bone metastasis after resection of periarticular destructive tumors. Surgeons may consider closer monitoring for early clinical and radiographic signs of aseptic loosening in patients who received high-dose radiation. These patients may also benefit from constructs that have increased resistance to aseptic loosening such as cross-pin or side plate fixation. The association between radiation and aseptic loosening should be further studied with larger studies with homogeneity in tumor diagnosis and prosthesis. The dose-dependent relationship between radiation and bone-related complications may also benefit from controlled, laboratory-based biomechanical studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Thoracic Outlet Syndrome in Major League Baseball Pitchers: Return to Sport and Performance Metrics After Rib Resection.

Background: Thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is a rare injury that affects Major League Baseball (MLB) pitchers and is often corrected with surgical resection of the first rib. There are limited return-to-play (RTP) data for this surgery in MLB pitchers. Hypothesis: It was hypothesized that MLB pitchers who undergo first rib resection for TOS will show (1) a high rate of RTP, (2) no difference in postoperative career length compared with controls, (3) no difference in pre- and postoperative performance, and (4) no difference in postoperative performance compared with controls. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated MLB pitchers with neurogenic or vascular TOS who underwent rib resection surgery between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2019. Players were identified through public injury reports from press releases, the MLB website, MLB team injury reports, and blogs. A demographics- and performance-matched control group was generated for comparison. Each player in the control group was given an index year that corresponded to the surgery year of the case group. Performance data included innings pitched (IP), games played (GP), earned run average (ERA), complete GP, shutouts, saves, hits, runs, home runs (HR), walks, strikeouts (K), walks plus hits per IP (WHIP), and earned runs (ER). Results: We identified 26 MLB pitchers who underwent rib resection for neurogenic or vascular TOS; 21 players (81%) had a successful RTP. Pitchers were 30 ± 3.6 years old at the time of surgery and had played 6.2 ± 3.5 seasons before undergoing surgery. Average postoperative career length was 3.1 ± 2.0 seasons, with an average time from surgery to RTP being 10 ± 4.7 months. Pitchers who RTP showed no significant differences in performance metrics compared with controls. Players pitch 0.94 (P < .05) more IP/GP in the season directly following RTP compared with the season before surgical intervention. Conclusion: MLB pitchers undergoing rib resection for TOS demonstrated (1) high RTP rates following rib resection, (2) no difference in postoperative career length compared with controls, (3) improvement in postoperative performance, and (4) no difference in postoperative performance compared with controls.