Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative Outcomes and Failure Rates of Total Femur Replacement in Oncologic and Nononcologic Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Lari, Ali; Esmaeil, Ali; AlSalem, Yousef; Alabbad, Fahad; Shahin, Maged; Aoude, Ahmed.
Affiliation
  • Lari A; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, AlRazi National Orthopedic Hospital, Kuwait.
  • Esmaeil A; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, AlRazi National Orthopedic Hospital, Kuwait.
  • AlSalem Y; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, AlRazi National Orthopedic Hospital, Kuwait.
  • Alabbad F; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, AlRazi National Orthopedic Hospital, Kuwait.
  • Shahin M; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, AlFarwaniya Hospital, Kuwait.
  • Aoude A; McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
JBJS Rev ; 12(7)2024 Jul 01.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38968379
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Total femur replacement (TFR) has become increasingly significant as a salvage procedure for both oncologic reconstruction and complex nononcologic conditions such as revision arthroplasty. Despite its effectiveness in limb salvage, TFR is associated with high complication and failure rates, which vary depending on the underlying indication.

METHODS:

This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases was conducted, focusing on studies that reported outcomes of TFR in oncologic and nononcologic cases. Primary outcomes included failure mode and rates according to the Henderson classification, functional outcomes scores, and mobility status. Data were analyzed using random-effects models and generalized linear mixed models.

RESULTS:

A total of 35 studies involving 1,002 patients were included. The majority of TFRs were performed for oncologic reasons (63.7%). The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 66%, with a limb salvage rate of 89%. The meta-analysis revealed a combined failure rate of 34%. For type 4 failures (infection), nononcologic patients exhibited a significantly higher rate at 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12%-26%, I2 = 46%, p < 0.01) compared with 8% in oncologic patients (95% CI, 6%-12%, I2 = 0%). Regarding combined types 1 to 4 failures, oncologic patients had a rate of 20% (95% CI, 25%-52%, I2 = 60%), whereas nononcologic patients faced a higher rate of 37% (95% CI, 12%-26%, I2 = 63%) (p < 0.05), indicating a significant difference. There were no significant differences in the MSTS score. In addition, there were no notable differences when comparing failure modes 1, 2, and 3 independently. Mobility analysis showed that approximately 70% of patients required walking aids after surgery.

CONCLUSION:

TFR offers a valuable limb salvage option in both oncologic and nononcologic scenarios, despite its high failure rates. Although functional outcomes were similar between groups, the higher failure rate in nononcologic cases and the poor overall quality of evidence warrant further comprehensive assessments into predictors of outcomes to optimize results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Femur Limits: Female / Humans / Male Language: En Journal: JBJS Rev Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Kuwait

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Femur Limits: Female / Humans / Male Language: En Journal: JBJS Rev Year: 2024 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Kuwait