Molded, Gamma-radiated, Argon-processed Polyethylene Components of Rotating Hinge Knee Megaprostheses Have a Lower Failure Hazard and Revision Rates Than Air-sterilized, Machined, Ram-extruded Bar Stock Components.

BACKGROUND: Megaprostheses are commonly used for reconstruction after distal femoral resection in orthopaedic oncology. The polyethylene bearings in these reconstructions experience wear and wear-related complications that may result in revision surgery. Improved manufacturing and processing of polyethylene has increased the durability of components commonly used for routine arthroplasty. Alterations in the manufacture of polyethylene is expected to reduce the revision risk of oncologic megaprostheses, resulting in fewer revision procedures, but this has not been proven. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Is there a difference in the hazard of polyethylene wear or breakage leading to prosthetic revision between differences in polyethylene manufacture and processing based on a competing risk analysis? METHODS: This was a single-center, observational, retrospective comparative study of 224 patients who had distal femur megaprostheses with identical rotating hinge articulations and knee kinematics after oncologic surgery from 1993 to 2015. No differences in surgical indications, joint articular components and kinematics, age, sex, diagnosis, BMI, use of chemotherapy, or tumor stage were seen with the patient numbers available. Prosthetic survivorship free from prosthetic revision surgery because of polyethylene wear-related revisions, defined as breakage, increased excursion on varus-valgus stress, or new locking or giving way was compared between two groups of patients: group 1 polyethylene (P1) (66 patients) who had air-sterilized machined ram-extruded bar stock or group 2 polyethylene (P2) (158 patients) molded gamma-radiated argon-processed polyethylene components. The mean follow-up duration for the P1 group (89 ± 55 months) was not different from that of patients with P2 polyethylene (79 ± 63 months; p = 0.24) including 27% (18 of 66) of patients in the P1 group and 25% (40 of 158) of patients in the P2 group followed for more than 10 years. More patients in the P2 group were lost to follow-up (9.2%, 16 of 174) than in the P1 group (5.7%, 4 of 70) but this was not statistically different (chi square; p = 0.37). The hazard of revision because of polyethylene wear or breakage was calculated with a competing risk analysis using the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model. RESULTS: The P1 implants had a higher hazard ratio for revision caused by polyethylene damage at 120 months than did the P2 polyethylene implants (P1 HR 0.24 [95% CI 0.13 to 0.36] versus HR 0.07 [95% CI 0.03 to 0.12]), which represents an estimated absolute risk reduction of 17% (95% CI 6.15 to 27.9). CONCLUSION: Polyethylene damage can result in megaprosthetic revisions in patients undergoing oncologic procedures. The hazard of polyethylene failure resulting in revision surgery was lower in patients who received recent polyethylene than in patients with polyethylene produced by previous methods, enhancing the durability of distal femoral megaprosthetic reconstructions. Despite improvements in polyethylene manufacture and clinical results, revision solely because of polyethylene damage still occurs in 7% of patients by the 10-year timepoint; thus, more improvement is needed. Patients who receive these implants should be monitored for signs and symptoms of polyethylene damage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Chemotherapy Curtails Bone Formation From Compliant Compression Fixation of Distal Femoral Endoprostheses.

BACKGROUND: Modulated compliant compressive forces may contribute to durable fixation of implant stems in patients with cancer who undergo endoprosthetic reconstruction after tumor resection. Chemotherapy effects on bone hypertrophy and osteointegration have rarely been studied, and no accepted radiologic method exists to evaluate compression-associated hypertrophy. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What was the effect of chemotherapy on the newly formed bone geometry (area) at 1 year and the presumed osteointegration? (2) What clinical factors were associated with the degree of hypertrophy? (3) Did the amount of bone formation correlate with implant fixation durability? (4) Was the amount of new bone generation or chemotherapy administration correlated with Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score? METHODS: Between 1999 and 2013, we performed 245 distal femoral reconstructions for primary or revision oncologic indications. We evaluated 105 patients who received this implant. Ten were excluded because they lacked 2 years of followup and two were lost to followup, leaving 93 patients for review. All underwent distal femur reconstruction with the compliant compressive fixation prosthesis; 49 received postoperative chemotherapy and 44 did not. During this period, the implant was used for oncology patients < 60 years of age without metastases and with > 8 cm of intact, nonirradiated bone distal to the lesser trochanter and ≥ 2.5 mm of cortex. Our cohort included patients with painful loosening of cemented or uncemented stemmed femoral megaprostheses when revision with the compliant compressive device was feasible. Patients with high-grade sarcomas all received chemotherapy, per active Children's Oncology Group protocols, for their tumor diagnosis. At each imaging time point (3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 months), we measured the radiographic area of the bone under compression using National Institutes of Health open-access software, any shortening of the spindle-anchor plug segment distance as reflected by the exposed traction bar length, and prosthesis survivorship. Clinical and functional status and MSTS scores were recorded at each followup visit. Duration of prosthesis retention without aseptic loosening or mechanical failure was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis, censoring patients at last followup. RESULTS: Chemotherapy was associated with the amount of overall bone formation in a time-dependent fashion. In the 12 months after surgery there was more bone formation in patients who did not receive postoperative chemotherapy than those who did (60.2 mm, confidence interval [CI] 49.3-71.1 versus 39.1, CI 33.3-44.9; p = 0.001). Chemotherapy was not associated with prosthesis survival. Ten-year implant survival was 85% with chemotherapy and 88% without chemotherapy (p = 0.74). With the number of patients we had, we did not identify any clinical factors that were associated with the amount (area) of hypertrophy. The hypertrophied area was not associated with the durability of implant fixation. MSTS scores were lower in patients treated with chemotherapy (25 versus 28; p = 0.023), but were not correlated with new bone formation. CONCLUSIONS: The relationships among chemotherapy, bone formation, and prosthetic survivorship are complex. Because bone formation is less in the first year when the patient is being treated with chemotherapy, it is not clear if the rehabilitation schedule should be different for those patients receiving chemotherapy compared with those who do not. The relationship between early bone formation and the timing of weightbearing rehabilitation should be evaluated in a multicenter study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.