Proximal Femur Replacements for an Oncologic Indication Offer a Durable Endoprosthetic Reconstruction Option: A 40-year Experience.

BACKGROUND: Proximal femur replacements (PFRs) are an effective surgical option to treat primary and metastatic tumors causing large bony defects in the proximal femur. Given the relative rarity of these indications, current studies on PFR for oncologic indications are generally limited by patient volume or relatively short-term follow-up. Because recent advances in systemic therapy have improved the prognosis of patients who undergo limb salvage surgery for musculoskeletal tumors, data on the long-term durability of endoprosthetic reconstructions have become increasingly important. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How does the long-term survival of cemented bipolar PFRs compare with patient survival in patients who underwent PFR for benign, aggressive, and metastatic tumors? (2) What are common reasons for revisions of primary PFRs? (3) Which factors are associated with survival of primary PFRs? (4) What is the survivorship free from conversion of bipolar PFRs to THA? METHODS: Between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 2020, we treated 812 patients with an endoprosthetic reconstruction for an oncologic indication. All patients who underwent a primary PFR for an oncologic indication were included in this study. The study cohort consisted of 122 patients receiving a primary PFR. Eighteen patients did not reach a censored endpoint such as death, revision, or amputation within 2 years. Thirty-three patients died within 2 years of their surgery. Of the 122 patients with primary PFRs, 39 did not reach a censored endpoint and have not been seen within the past 5 years. However, the mean follow-up time for these patients was longer than 10 years. The Social Security Death Index was queried to identify any patients who may have died but might not have been captured by our database To allow for adequate follow-up, endoprosthetic reconstructions performed after December 31, 2020 were excluded. The mean age at the time of the index surgery was 48 ± 22 years. The mean follow-up time of surviving patients was 7 ± 8 years. All PFRs were performed using a bipolar hemiarthroplasty with a cemented stem, and all implants were considered comparable. Demographic, oncologic, procedural, and outcome data including prosthesis survival, patient survival, complication rates, and rates of conversion to THA were analyzed. Patient, prosthesis, and limb salvage survival rates were generated, with implant revision as the endpoint and death as a competing risk. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: Generally, patients with benign or low-grade (Stage I) disease outlived their implants (100% patient survival through 30 years; p = 0.02), whereas the opposite was true in patients with high-grade, localized Stage II disease (64% patient survival at 5 years [95% CI 49% to 76%]; p = 0.001) or widespread Stage III metastatic disease (6.2% patient survival at 5 years [95% CI 0.5% to 24%]; p < 0.001). Primary PFR implant survival at 5, 10, 20, and 30 years was 97% (95% CI 90% to 99%), 81% (95% CI 67% to 90%), 69% (95% CI 46% to 84%), and 51% (95% CI 24% to 73%), respectively. Eight percent (10 of 122) of primary PFRs were revised for any reason. The most common causes of revision were aseptic loosening (3% [four of 122]), infection (3% [three of 122]), breakage of the implant (2% [two of 122]), and tumor progression (1% [one of 122]). Follow-up time was the only factor that was associated with revision of primary PFRs. Neither segment length nor stem length were associated with revision of primary. Six percent (seven of 122) of PFRs were converted to THA at a mean 15 ± 8 years from the index procedure. Survivorship free from conversion to THA (accounting for death as a competing risk) was 94% (95% CI 85% to 99%), 86% (95% CI 68% to 94%). and 77% (95% CI 51% to 91%) at 10, 20, and 30 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Cemented bipolar PFRs for an oncologic indication are a relatively durable reconstruction technique. Given the relative longevity and efficacy of PFRs demonstrated in our study, especially in patients with high-grade or metastatic disease where implant survival until all-cause revision was longer than patient survival, surgeons should continue to seriously consider PFRs in appropriate patients. The relative rarity of these reconstructions limits the number of patients in this study as well as in current research; thus, further multi-institutional collaborations are needed to provide the most accurate prognostic data for our patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Survival of Patients With Primary Osseous Malignancies of the Mobile Spine Is Associated With Access to "Standard Treatment" Protocols.

INTRODUCTION: Malignancies of the mobile spine carry high morbidity and mortality. This study sought to examine factors associated with receipt of "standard" treatment and survival for patients with primary mobile spine tumors in the California Cancer Registry (CCR). METHODS: The CCR (1988 to 2016) data were obtained for patients with primary tumors of the mobile spine and at least 1-year follow-up. Sacrum/pelvis tumors were excluded. Age at diagnosis, sex, race, neighborhood socioeconomic status, insurance, Charlson Comorbidity Index, histologic diagnosis, stage at diagnosis, and treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Center (NCICC) were collected. Multivariate analyses were done to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality and receipt of "standard" treatment. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-four patients (64% White, 56% low neighborhood socioeconomic status, and 36% privately insured) were included. Chordoma (37%) was the most common diagnosis. Only 16% had metastatic disease at presentation. Only 29% received treatment at an NCICC. Lower age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, less extensive stage of disease, and private insurance were associated with lower all-cause mortality (all P < 0.05). Medicaid/public insurance (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 2.41) and Medicare (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.25 to 2.59) were associated with higher mortality compared with private insurance. Patients who received no known treatment (HR, 2.41; CI, 1.51 to 3.84) or treatment other than the "standard" (HR, 1.45; CI, 1.11 to 1.91) had higher mortality compared with those who received the standard protocols. A critical predictor of receiving the standard treatment protocol was being treated at an NCICC. If patients did not receive care at such institutions, they received optimal treatment only 40% of the time (HR, 0.5; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of defined "standard treatment" protocols was associated with care received at an NCICC and lower all-cause mortality in patients with primary osseous malignancies of the mobile spine. Patients with public insurance are vulnerable to worse outcomes, regardless of age, disease burden, or receipt of standard treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Assessment of three-dimensional nasolabial response to Le Fort I advancement.

BACKGROUND: Le Fort I advancement induces soft tissue changes to the nasolabial region. The correlation of sagittal skeletal movement to soft tissue alteration has been studied using 2D methods. However, the influence of maxillary advancement has not been adequately assessed using three-dimensional means. The purpose of this study is to analyze nasolabial changes following Le Fort I advancement using 3D photometric measurements. METHODS: Patient demographic information and their amount of advancement were tabulated. Pre- and postoperative 3D photographs (3D VECTRA photosystem, Canfield, Fairfield, NJ) were recorded. Nasolabial anthropometric measurements were performed using the corresponding 3D post-processing software (Mirror). Six month minimum follow-up elapsed before final evaluation. RESULTS: Forty-four 3D photo data sets were included. Mean maxillary advancement was 5.5 (±1.9) mm. Male/female ratio was 0.7 with a mean age of 16.7 years. Significant increases (p < 0.0001) were seen in the alar base, alar widths, nostril width, and in the soft triangle and lateral alar angles. Significant decreases (p < 0.0001) were noted in the nasofrontal angle and in nostril height. A significant (p < 0.05) increase of the nasal tip, columella and upper lip projection was seen. Philtral height showed no significant changes (p > 0.05) after maxillary advancement. No significant correlation (p > 0.05) between the degree of soft tissue changes and the amount of maxillary advancement was found. CONCLUSION: Le Fort I advancement significantly impacts the nasolabial soft tissue envelope. The 3D soft tissue changes are predictable and similar for any advancement up to 10 mm.