Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Eur J Med Res ; 23(1): 5, 2018 Jan 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29338761

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Several surgical options for the reconstruction of massive bone defects have been described and include biologic methods with autografts and allografts, and the use of tumor endoprostheses (total femoral replacement, TFR). Several types of modular TFR are available, but nevertheless unpredictable outcomes and high complication rates have been described from most authors. The present study aims to compare results after TFR performed with modular total femur prosthesis MML (Fa. ESKA/Orthodynamics) in patients with and without malignant disease. METHODS: Retrospective chart review and functional investigation (Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, Harris Hip Score (HHS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), SF-12 Health Survey, and failure classification according to Henderson) of TFR cases from 1995 to 2011. Indications for TFR were malignant tumor resection from the femur (n = 9, Group A) or failure of a revision arthroplasty without history of malignant disease (n = 13, Group B). RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were treated during the study period, of whom 22 could be investigated clinically after a mean follow-up of 63 months. Overall failure rate for TFR was 59.1%, leading to 38 surgical revisions. The most common failure mechanisms were Type I (soft tissue), followed by Type IV (infection) and Type III (mechanical failure). Mean MSTS score out of 30 was 13 (range 1-25), with significantly higher scores in Group A (mean 19, range 3-25) than Group B (mean 9, range 1-15). CONCLUSION: TFR is an established procedure to restore femoral integrity. However, complication rates are considerably high, and depend mainly on the age at initial reconstruction.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/adverse effects , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/adverse effects , Femur/surgery , Prosthesis Failure/etiology , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Hip Prosthesis/adverse effects , Humans , Knee Prosthesis/adverse effects , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/surgery , Reoperation/statistics & numerical data , Surgical Wound Infection/etiology
2.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord ; 17(1): 498, 2016 12 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27955655

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Compromised bone stock and heavily impaired structural integrity after multiple endoprosthetic revision surgeries can lead to a comparable condition as encountered in musculoskeletal tumor surgery. Total femoral replacement (TFR) can restore femoral integrity and allow patients to resume ambulation. Even though several authors reported their results of TFR, so far many questions are still on debate: Which patients are at risk to experience low functional outcome? Do complications and clinical outcome after TFR depend on the indication for the surgery (e.g. periprosthetic fractures or aseptic loosening) or the age of the patients? The purpose of the present study was to compare complication rates after TFR performed with modular total femur prosthesis MML (Fa. ESKA/Orthodynamics) in patients without malignant disease. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review and functional investigation of patients treated with a TFR for non-oncologic conditions from 1995 to 2015 and a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Complications were recorded according to the Henderson-Classification; outcome was evaluated with established clinical scores. The indication for TFR was periprosthetic fracture (Group A, n = 11) or aseptic loosening (Group B, n = 7) with massive bone defect of the femur deemed unsuitable for conventional arthroplastic or biologic reconstruction. RESULTS: Eighteen patients matched the inclusion criteria and could be investigated clinically after a mean follow-up of 80 months (range: 28-132). Before TFA, all patients had previously undergone multiple operations (range: 1-8). The overall failure rate for any reason was 72% (n = 13/18), leading to a total of 37 surgical revisions with total exchange of TFR in 22% (n = 4/18). Most common failure mechanism was Type I (soft tissue), followed by Type IV (infection) and Type III (mechanical failure). According to Enneking's functional evaluation method (MSTS-Score), the function ranged from 1 to 15 with a mean of 10 ± 4 out of 30. CONCLUSION: TFR is a salvage procedure to restore mechanical integrity and regain functional ability after extensive femoral bone loss. Outcome of the patients in the present study did mainly depend on the age at reconstruction and not on the indication for TFR.


Subject(s)
Femur/surgery , Limb Salvage/adverse effects , Plastic Surgery Procedures/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Prosthesis Failure , Reoperation/adverse effects , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Femur/pathology , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Limb Salvage/methods , Male , Periprosthetic Fractures/surgery , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Prosthesis Design , Radiography , Plastic Surgery Procedures/methods , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...