Journal of Orthopedics and Joint Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2024 ) > List of Articles

CASE SERIES

Outcome of Limb-sparing Surgery with Custom Mega Endoprosthesis Reconstruction for Bone Tumors in a Tertiary Care Center—10-year Study: Where Do We Stand?

Subbiah Shanmugam, Pravenkumar R Ramaswami

Keywords : Bone reconstruction, Bone tumors, Custom mega endoprosthesis, Endoprosthesis, Limb-sparing surgery

Citation Information : Shanmugam S, Ramaswami PR. Outcome of Limb-sparing Surgery with Custom Mega Endoprosthesis Reconstruction for Bone Tumors in a Tertiary Care Center—10-year Study: Where Do We Stand?. 2024; 6 (2):167-169.

DOI: 10.5005/jojs-10079-1151

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-06-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background and objectives: Limb-sparing surgery with custom mega endoprosthesis reconstruction for bone tumors has been the standard of care in our institution. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the complications and their management, the ability to retain the limb despite complications, and functional outcome of the retained limb. Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 55 patients who, between 2013 and 2022, had undergone resection of extremity bone tumors followed by reconstruction with mega endoprosthesis. The complications were classified according to Henderson endoprosthesis failure modes. The management of these complications, rates of re-surgery, and associated limb-sparing rates were analyzed. Patients with retained limbs were rehabilitated by institutional protocol. Based on the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system, the functional outcome was determined. Results: The study involved 55 patients. The mean follow-up was 28 months. A total of 22 patients (40%) experienced postoperative complications, with type I (soft tissue failure) and type II (aseptic loosening) being the most common. After re-surgery, either a second limb-sparing procedure or amputation, 49 patients (89.1%) retained their limb. The mean MSTS score for these 49 patients was 77.2%. The highest scores were encountered for patients with distal femur replacement (82.1%) and lowest for proximal humerus (72.4%). Conclusion: Our study shows that despite the complications of custom mega endoprosthesis reconstruction, we have managed it with a good limb-sparing rate. The functional outcome, though reasonable, seems to have scope for improvement.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Simon MA, Aschliman MA, Thomas N, et al. Limb-salvage treatment versus amputation for osteosarcoma of the distal end of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986;68(9):1331–1337. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.8712.cl
  2. Rougraff BT, Simon MA, Kneisl JS, et al. Limb salvage compared with amputation for osteosarcoma of the distal end of the femur. A long-term oncological, functional, and quality-of-life study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994;76(5):649–656. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199405000-00004
  3. DiCaprio MR, Friedlaender GE. Malignant bone tumors: limb sparing versus amputation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2003;11(1):25–37. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-200301000-00005
  4. Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Pala E, et al. Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93(5):418–429. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00834
  5. Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, et al. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993;(286):241–246. PMID: 8425352.
  6. Malawer MM, Chou LB. Prosthetic survival and clinical results with use of large-segment replacements in the treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995;77(8):1154–1165. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199508000-00003
  7. Cho WH, Song WS, Jeon DG, et al. Cause of infection in proximal tibial endoprosthetic reconstructions. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012;132(2):163–169. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-011-1405-3
  8. Wirganowicz PZ, Eckardt JJ, Dorey FJ, et al. Etiology and results of tumor endoprosthesis revision surgery in 64 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999;(358):64–74. PMID: 9973977.
  9. Berger C, Larsson S, Bergh P, et al. The risk for complications and reoperations with the use of mega prostheses in bone reconstructions. J Orthop Surg Res 2021;16(1):598. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02749-z
  10. Mayilvahanan N, Paraskumar M, Sivaseelam A, et al. Custom mega-prosthetic replacement for proximal humeral tumours. Int Orthop 2006;30(3):158–162. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-005-0029-z
  11. Ruggieri P, Bosco G, Pala E, et al. Local recurrence, survival and function after total femur resection and megaprosthetic reconstruction for bone sarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468(11):2860–2866. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1476-4
  12. Pala E, Trovarelli G, Calabro T, et al. Survival of modern knee tumor megaprostheses: failures, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473(3):891–899. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3699-2
  13. Tan PK, Tan MH. Functional outcome study of mega-endoprosthetic reconstruction in limbs with bone tumour surgery. Ann Acad Med Singap 2009;38(3):192–196. PMID: 19347070.
  14. Fuhrmann RA, Roth A, Venbrocks RA. Salvage of the upper extremity in cases of tumorous destruction of the proximal humerus. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2000;126(6):337–344. DOI: 10.1007/s004320050353
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.