Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38773833

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Stem fixation in reconstruction after resection of femoral tumors is debated. Cemented stems offer immediate stability but risk aseptic loosening, while press-fit stems allow bone ingrowth but risk stress shielding and subsidence. Our retrospective review aimed to determine implant failure rates and their associated factors, as well as the rates of infection, debridement, and mortality for both fixation groups (cemented or press-fit stems) used in patients undergoing resection of femoral tumor disease and subsequent arthroplasty. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 252 patients who underwent resection of femoral tumors and subsequent arthroplasty using cemented (n = 173; 69%) or press-fit (noncemented) (n = 79; 31%) stems between 1999 and 2020. Implant failure was the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including rates of implant infection, debridement, and mortality. Multivariable regression was done to assess risk factors for implant failures. RESULTS: The study found implant failure rates of 11% and 18% for cemented stems and press-fit stems, respectively. Lower stem to diaphyseal ratios (P = 0.024) and younger patients (P = 0.008) were associated with a higher risk of implant failure in cemented stems. The infection rates were 14% and 10% for cemented and press-fit stems, respectively. Debridement rates were 16% and 13% for cemented and press-fit stems, respectively, while the 1-year mortality rate was 16% for cemented stems and 1.5% for press-fit stems. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the largest of its kind, providing patient characteristics and outcomes in both cemented and press-fit stems in the setting of reconstruction for femoral tumors. Both methods can be effective, with outcomes dependent on patient-specific factors, such as life expectancy, activity level, and body habitus, as well as proper implant fit. Additional studies of both implants and longer follow-up are required to elucidate the optimal fixation method for each individual patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective noncomparative study.

2.
J Am Acad Orthop Surg ; 32(3): e134-e145, 2024 Feb 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37824083

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Intramedullary nail fixation is commonly used for prophylactic stabilization of impending and fixation of complete pathological fractures of the long bones. However, metallic artifacts complicate imaging evaluation for bone healing or tumor progression and postoperative radiation planning. Carbon-fiber implants have gained popularity as an alternative, given their radiolucency and superior axial bending. This study evaluates incidences of mechanical and nonmechanical complications. METHODS: Adult patients (age 18 years and older) treated with carbon-fiber nails for impending/complete pathological long bone fractures secondary to metastases from 2013 to 2020 were analyzed for incidences and risk factors of mechanical and nonmechanical complications. Mechanical complications included aseptic screw loosening and structural failures of host bone and carbon-fiber implants. Deep infection and tumor progression were considered nonmechanical. Other complications/adverse events were also reported. RESULTS: A total of 239 patients were included; 47% were male, and 53% were female, with a median age of 68 (IQR, 59 to 75) years. Most common secondary metastases were related to breast cancer (19%), lung cancer (19%), multiple myeloma (18%), and sarcoma (13%). In total, 17 of 30 patients with metastatic sarcoma received palliative intramedullary nail fixation for impending/complete pathological fractures, and 13 of 30 received prophylactic nail stabilization of bone radiated preoperatively to manage juxta-osseous soft-tissue sarcomas, where partial resection of the periosteum or bone was necessary for negative margin resection. 33 (14%) patients had complications. Mechanical failures included 4 (1.7%) structural host bone failures, 7 (2.9%) implant structural failures, and 1 (0.4%) aseptic loosening of distal locking screws. Nonmechanical failures included 8 (3.3%) peri-implant infections and 15 (6.3%) tumor progressions with implant contamination. The 90-day and 1-year mortalities were 28% (61/239) and 53% (53/102), respectively. The literature reported comparable failure and mortality rates with conventional titanium treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Carbon-fiber implants might be an alternative for treating impending and sustained pathological fractures secondary to metastatic bone disease. The seemingly comparable complication profile warrants further cohort studies comparing carbon-fiber and titanium nail complications.


Assuntos
Fixação Intramedular de Fraturas , Fraturas Espontâneas , Sarcoma , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pinos Ortopédicos , Fibra de Carbono , Fixação Intramedular de Fraturas/métodos , Fraturas Espontâneas/etiologia , Titânio , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...