Mechanisms of failure and survival of total femoral endoprosthetic replacements.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Bone Neoplasms
/ surgery
Child
Femur
/ pathology
Humans
Middle Aged
Orthopedic Procedures
/ adverse effects
Prostheses and Implants
/ adverse effects
Prosthesis Failure
/ adverse effects
Reoperation
/ adverse effects
Retrospective Studies
Survival Analysis
Young Adult
Complications
Endoprosthetic replacement
Implant survival
Limb salvage
Revision arthroplasty
Total femoral arthroplasty
Journal
The bone & joint journal
ISSN: 2049-4408
Titre abrégé: Bone Joint J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101599229
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
entrez:
1
5
2019
pubmed:
1
5
2019
medline:
16
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the prosthesis characteristics and associated conditions that may modify the survival of total femoral endoprosthetic replacements (TFEPR). In all, 81 patients treated with TFEPR from 1976 to 2017 were retrospectively evaluated and failures were categorized according to the Henderson classification. There were 38 female patients (47%) and 43 male patients (53%) with a mean age at diagnosis of 43 years (12 to 86). The mean follow-up time was 10.3 years (0 to 31.7). A survival analysis was performed followed by univariate and multivariate Cox regression to identify independent implant survival factors. The revision-free survival of the implant was 71% at five years and 63.3% at ten years. Three prostheses reached 15 years without revision. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score in the group was 26 (23 to 28). The mechanisms of failure were infection in 18%, structural failures in 6%, tumour progression in 5%, aseptic loosening in 2%, and soft-tissue failures in 1%. Prostheses used for primary reconstruction after oncological resections had lower infection rates than revision implants (8% TFEPR offers a reliable reconstruction option for massive bone loss of the femur, with a good survival when the prosthesis is used as a primary implant. The use of a rotating hinge at the knee and dual mobility bearing at the hip may be adequate to reduce the risk of mechanical and soft-tissue failures. Infection remains the main concern and there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of silver-coated endoprosthesis. Cite this article:
Identifiants
pubmed: 31038993
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B5.BJJ-2018-1106.R1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM