Salvage of limb salvage in oncological reconstructions of the lower limb with megaprosthesis: how much to push the boundaries?

INTRODUCTION: Megaprosthesis represent the most commonly used limb salvage method after musculoskeletal tumor resections. Nevertheless, they are burdened by high complication rate, requiring several surgical revisions and eventually limb amputation. The aims of this study were to evaluate the effect of rescuing the limb with subsequent revisions on complication rates (a), incidence of amputations (b), and whether complications reduce functional outcome after the first surgical revision (c). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 444 lower limb megaprosthesis implanted for primary musculoskeletal tumors or metastatic lesions, from February 2000 to November 2017. 59 patients received at least one revision megaprosthesis surgery. MSTS score was used to assess final functional results. Complication-revision-amputation free survival rates were calculated both at 5 and 10 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Complication free survival, revision free survival and amputation free survival at 10 years were 47% and 53%, 61% and 67%, 90% and 86% among all 444 patients and the group of 59 revised patients, respectively. The incidence of further complications after the first complication was 26% in the group treated with no subsequent revision surgeries and 51% in the group with at least one revision surgery. We found a trend of inverse linear relationship between the number of complications needing subsequent revision surgeries and the final MSTS. CONCLUSION: The number of further revision surgeries after limb salvage with megaprosthesis increases the incidence of complications. Repeated surgical revisions, in particular after infection, increase the amputation rate. The most frequent causes of failure were structural failures and infections. MSTS score was superior for patients undergoing limb salvage than amputees. However, MSTS progressively decreased with multiple revisions becoming inferior to the functional score of an amputated patient.

Cemented vs uncemented megaprostheses in proximal femur metastases: a multicentric comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Hip megaprostheses are a long known reconstructive method in the treatment of proximal femur metastases. The use of cemented or uncemented stems is still matter of debate. The aim of this study to compare cemented and uncemented megaprostheses on functional outcomes and complications, in order to establish the role of cementation. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 51 metastatic patients with proximal femur metastases treated with endoprosthetic reconstruction by megaprostheses, 25 with cementless stems and 26 with cemented ones with different megaprosthetic implants. The primary endpoint was MSTS score, and the secondary endpoint was to state the incidence of surgical and clinical complications in the two groups. An un-paired T test was used to compare anthropometric, anamnestic data, and MSTS. Chi-square test was performed for evaluation of complication in the two group. Multiple linear regression was used to match the functional outcomes and complications' incidence in the population study. Logistic regression was performed to analyse the odds ratio of different parameters and their role in the incidence of complications. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 50.1 months (+ 12.5). In thirty case right side was involved. No statistical differences were noticed between Group A and B regard the age, gender, active fracture/impending fracture. Comparing the MSTS results within the two groups at last follow-up, the score cemented group was higher than cementless one (17.9 + 7.8 vs 24.2 + 5.3; statistical significance p = 0.001). Regarding surgical complications a logistic regression was performed to analyse the odds ratio of age, cementation and length of resection; cementation confirm and odds ratio of 11 times in the incidence of surgical complications. CONCLUSIONS: Cementation seems to be more liable to complications onset, while improves functional score in metastatic patients compared to uncemented megaprostheses. More studies have to be conducted in order to create a protocol and establish criteria to use cemented or uncemented stems in a frail population like metastatic patients.

The Performances of Conventional Titanium and Silver-Coated Megaprostheses in Non-oncological and Post-oncological Patients: An Analysis of Infection Failures in 142 Patients.

Background: Megaprostheses are one of the preferred choices of reconstruction after tumor resection. Periprosthetic joint infections are one of the most serious complications of joint prostheses surgeries. In this study, our aim was to analyze the efficacy of silver-coated megaprostheses in reducing the risk of prosthesis-related infection. Methods: One hundred forty-two patients who had undergone implantation of a mega-endoprosthesis for non-neoplastic or post-neoplastic conditions were included in this retrospective study. The end-point of the survival analysis was the prosthesis failure due to infection. Results: Thirty-eight patients had undergone implantation of a silver-coated megaprosthesis and 104 patients a megaprosthesis without silver coating. The survival analysis showed an overall infection-free survival rate of 82.3% at five years and 61.9% at 10 years. Silver-coated prostheses had an HR of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.26-2.05; P=0.54). Conclusion: Implantation of a silver-coated mega-prosthesis in non-oncological patients did not significantly reduce the risk of prosthesis-related infection.

Ewing family tumors of the appendicular skeleton: a retrospective analysis of prognostic factors.

PURPOSE: Authors retrospectively analyzed possible prognostic factors in a series of patients affected by Ewing sarcoma of extremities (eEWS) and treated over a 20-year period at a single institution. METHODS: Between 1997 and 2017, 88 bone eEWS were treated at our institution. Staging, age, gender, tumoral volume, local treatment, surgical margins, post-ChT necrosis were investigated for prognostic correlation with overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). Median follow-up was 74 months (1-236). RESULTS: Staging of disease correlated with OS (81% vs 59%, p = 0.01) and not with EFS (68% vs 57%, p = 0.28) in localized vs metastatic eEWS at presentation. Age ≥ 14 years (p = 0.002) and volume ≥ 100 cm3 (p = 0.04) were significant negative prognostic factors. No difference was found in local treatment: OS was 76% vs 63% (p = 0.33), while EFS was 68% vs 49% (p = 0.06) after surgery alone or surgery + radiotherapy, respectively. Regarding surgical margins, OS was 76% vs 38% (p = 0.14), and EFS was 65% vs 33% (p = 0.14) in adequate vs not adequate, respectively. OS was 86% and 68% in good and poor responders, respectively (p = 0.13). CONCLUSION: In eEWS, metastatic disease at presentation, age > 14 years and tumoral volume > 100 cm3 are negative prognostic factors. Intensified adjuvant ChT can improve prognosis in poor responders and metastatic patients.