Comparative Outcomes and Failure Rates of Total Femur Replacement in Oncologic and Nononcologic Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

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.

The Importance of Scar Cosmesis across the Surgical Specialties: Factors, Perceptions, and Predispositions.

Existing disparities in the perception of scars between patients and practitioners can translate into undesirable physical and psychological outcomes. An understanding of the determinants of surgeons' perceptions on the importance of scar cosmesis is a first step toward bridging this gap. Methods: In an online survey, surgeons were asked about the extent to which various patient and technical factors affect the importance of scar cosmesis. Additional data were obtained on surgeon characteristics, including their specialty, gender, years of experience, and work sector to investigate potential relationships. Results: A total of 303 responses were obtained from surgeons across six specialties. Based on the survey, the importance of scar cosmesis was rated highest among plastic surgeons and obstetricians and gynecologists, and lowest among orthopedic and vascular surgeons. Compared with surgeons in private practice, publicly employed surgeons' rating of the importance of cosmesis was lower. The patient's request for a cosmetic outcome was the most highly rated factor. Regarding the influence of patient demographics on surgeons' attitudes, scar cosmesis in young and female patients was favored in comparison with older and male patients. Factors that reduced the importance of cosmesis were emergency and late-night surgeries followed by lengthy procedures, large incisions, and busy operative lists. Conclusions: These initial findings highlight a need to investigate means of fostering a more holistic, impartial approach toward scar cosmesis, as well as addressing potential workplace barriers that may prevent surgeons from seeking a more cosmetic result. Greater alignment between the priorities of surgeons and patients may manifest in objective and subjective improvements in patient's scars and well-being.