What is the Likelihood That Tumor Endoprostheses Will Experience a Second Complication After First Revision in Patients With Primary Malignant Bone Tumors And What Are Potential Risk Factors?
Adult
Aged
Bone Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Germany
/ epidemiology
Humans
Incidence
Male
Middle Aged
Osteosarcoma
/ diagnosis
Osteotomy
/ adverse effects
Postoperative Complications
/ diagnosis
Prostheses and Implants
/ adverse effects
Prosthesis Design
Prosthesis Failure
Plastic Surgery Procedures
/ adverse effects
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
/ methods
Risk Factors
Journal
Clinical orthopaedics and related research
ISSN: 1528-1132
Titre abrégé: Clin Orthop Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0075674
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2019
Dec 2019
Historique:
entrez:
26
11
2019
pubmed:
26
11
2019
medline:
5
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Endoprosthetic reconstruction of massive bone defects has become the reconstruction method of choice after limb-sparing resection of primary malignant tumors of the long bones. Given the improved survival rates of patients with extremity bone sarcomas, an increasing number of patients survive but have prosthetic complications over time. Several studies have reported on the outcome of first endoprosthetic complications. However, no comprehensive data, to our knowledge, are available on the likelihood of an additional complication and the associated risk factors, despite the impact of this issue on the affected patients. (1) What are the types and timing of complications and the implant survivorship free from revision after the first complication? (2) Does survivorship free from repeat revision for a second complication differ by anatomic sites? (3) Is the type of first complication associated with the risk or the type of a second complication? (4) Are patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors associated with a higher likelihood of repeat revision? Between 1993 and 2015, 817 patients underwent megaprosthetic reconstruction after resection of a tumor in the long bones with a single design of a megaprosthetic system. No other prosthetic system was used during the study period. Of those, 75% (616 of 817) had a bone sarcoma. Seventeen patients (3%) had a follow-up of less than 6 months, 4.5% (27 of 599) died with the implant intact before 6 months and 43% (260 of 599 patients) underwent revision. Forty-three percent of patients (260 of 599) experienced a first prosthetic complication during the follow-up period. Ten percent of patients (26 of 260) underwent amputation after the first complication and were excluded from further analysis. Second complications were classified using the classification of Henderson et al. to categorize surgical results. Briefly, this system categorizes complications as wound dehiscence (Type 1); aseptic loosening (Type 2); implant fractures or breakage and periprosthetic fracture (Type 3); infection (Type 4); and tumor progression (Type 5). Implant survival curves were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated with their respective 95% CIs in multivariate Cox regression models. A second complication occurred in 49% of patients (115 of 234) after a median of 17 months (interquartile range [IQR] 5 to 48) after the surgery for the first complication. The time to complication did not differ between the first (median 16 months; IQR 5 to 57) and second complication (median 17 months; IQR 5 to 48; p = 0.976). The implant survivorship free from revision surgery for a second complication was 69% (95% CI 63 to 76) at 2 years and 46% (95% CI 38 to 53) at 5 years. The most common mode of second complication was infection 39% (45 of 115), followed by structural complications with 35% (40 of 115). Total bone and total knee reconstructions had a reduced survivorship free from revision surgery for a second complication at 5 years (HR 2.072 [95% CI 1.066 to 3.856]; p = 0.031) compared with single joint replacements. With the numbers we had, we could not show a difference between the survivorship free of revision for a second complication based on the type of the first complication (HR 0.74 [95% CI 0.215 to 2.546]; p = 0.535). We did not detect an association between total reconstruction length, patient BMI, and patient age and survivorship free from revision for a second complication. Patients had a higher risk of second complications after postoperative radiotherapy (HR 1.849 [95% CI 1.092 to 3.132]; p = 0.022) but not after preoperative radiotherapy (HR 1.174 [95% CI 0.505 to 2.728]; p = 0.709). Patients with diabetes at the time of initial surgery had a reduced survivorship free from revision for a second complication (HR 4.868 [95% CI 1.497 to 15.823]; p = 0.009). Patients who undergo revision to treat a first megaprosthetic complication must be counseled regarding the high risk of future complications. With second complications occurring relatively soon after the first revision, regular orthopaedic follow-up visits are advised. Preoperative rather than postoperative radiotherapy should be performed when possible. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches in treating complications considering implant survivorship free of revision for a second complication. Level III, therapeutic study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Endoprosthetic reconstruction of massive bone defects has become the reconstruction method of choice after limb-sparing resection of primary malignant tumors of the long bones. Given the improved survival rates of patients with extremity bone sarcomas, an increasing number of patients survive but have prosthetic complications over time. Several studies have reported on the outcome of first endoprosthetic complications. However, no comprehensive data, to our knowledge, are available on the likelihood of an additional complication and the associated risk factors, despite the impact of this issue on the affected patients.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
OBJECTIVE
(1) What are the types and timing of complications and the implant survivorship free from revision after the first complication? (2) Does survivorship free from repeat revision for a second complication differ by anatomic sites? (3) Is the type of first complication associated with the risk or the type of a second complication? (4) Are patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors associated with a higher likelihood of repeat revision?
METHODS
METHODS
Between 1993 and 2015, 817 patients underwent megaprosthetic reconstruction after resection of a tumor in the long bones with a single design of a megaprosthetic system. No other prosthetic system was used during the study period. Of those, 75% (616 of 817) had a bone sarcoma. Seventeen patients (3%) had a follow-up of less than 6 months, 4.5% (27 of 599) died with the implant intact before 6 months and 43% (260 of 599 patients) underwent revision. Forty-three percent of patients (260 of 599) experienced a first prosthetic complication during the follow-up period. Ten percent of patients (26 of 260) underwent amputation after the first complication and were excluded from further analysis. Second complications were classified using the classification of Henderson et al. to categorize surgical results. Briefly, this system categorizes complications as wound dehiscence (Type 1); aseptic loosening (Type 2); implant fractures or breakage and periprosthetic fracture (Type 3); infection (Type 4); and tumor progression (Type 5). Implant survival curves were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated with their respective 95% CIs in multivariate Cox regression models.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A second complication occurred in 49% of patients (115 of 234) after a median of 17 months (interquartile range [IQR] 5 to 48) after the surgery for the first complication. The time to complication did not differ between the first (median 16 months; IQR 5 to 57) and second complication (median 17 months; IQR 5 to 48; p = 0.976). The implant survivorship free from revision surgery for a second complication was 69% (95% CI 63 to 76) at 2 years and 46% (95% CI 38 to 53) at 5 years. The most common mode of second complication was infection 39% (45 of 115), followed by structural complications with 35% (40 of 115). Total bone and total knee reconstructions had a reduced survivorship free from revision surgery for a second complication at 5 years (HR 2.072 [95% CI 1.066 to 3.856]; p = 0.031) compared with single joint replacements. With the numbers we had, we could not show a difference between the survivorship free of revision for a second complication based on the type of the first complication (HR 0.74 [95% CI 0.215 to 2.546]; p = 0.535). We did not detect an association between total reconstruction length, patient BMI, and patient age and survivorship free from revision for a second complication. Patients had a higher risk of second complications after postoperative radiotherapy (HR 1.849 [95% CI 1.092 to 3.132]; p = 0.022) but not after preoperative radiotherapy (HR 1.174 [95% CI 0.505 to 2.728]; p = 0.709). Patients with diabetes at the time of initial surgery had a reduced survivorship free from revision for a second complication (HR 4.868 [95% CI 1.497 to 15.823]; p = 0.009).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Patients who undergo revision to treat a first megaprosthetic complication must be counseled regarding the high risk of future complications. With second complications occurring relatively soon after the first revision, regular orthopaedic follow-up visits are advised. Preoperative rather than postoperative radiotherapy should be performed when possible. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches in treating complications considering implant survivorship free of revision for a second complication.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Level III, therapeutic study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31764339
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000955
pii: 00003086-201912000-00020
pmc: PMC6907292
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2705-2714Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Mar;473(3):917-25
pubmed: 24801261
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2004 Sep;43(3):229-36
pubmed: 15266406
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Feb;473(2):453-9
pubmed: 25024028
Surg Oncol. 2016 Mar;25(1):16-23
pubmed: 26979636
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Mar 2;93(5):418-29
pubmed: 21368074
Bone Joint J. 2016 Jun;98-B(6):857-64
pubmed: 27235533
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Mar;109:36-50
pubmed: 30685685
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Mar;473(3):820-30
pubmed: 24964884
Tumori. 2018 Jan-Feb;104(1):30-36
pubmed: 29218692
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 5;13(7):e0200304
pubmed: 29975769
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2006 Jul;126(5):289-96
pubmed: 16628430
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Sep;450:164-71
pubmed: 16691142
Ann Oncol. 2010 Oct;21 Suppl 7:vii320-5
pubmed: 20943636
J Surg Oncol. 2013 Nov;108(6):403-8
pubmed: 24006247
Int Orthop. 2003;27(3):160-3
pubmed: 12799759
Knee. 2012 Oct;19(5):543-9
pubmed: 21911296
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Mar;475(3):708-718
pubmed: 26649558
J Clin Oncol. 2002 Feb 1;20(3):776-90
pubmed: 11821461
Radiat Oncol. 2016 Oct 12;11(1):136
pubmed: 27733179
Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2015 Apr;47(2):90-9
pubmed: 25897578
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Nov;468(11):2885-95
pubmed: 20625951
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Apr;87(4):842-9
pubmed: 15805215
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Nov;473(11):3431-42
pubmed: 25804881
Bone Joint J. 2014 Nov;96-B(11):1436-40
pubmed: 25371453
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Oct;89(10):1352-5
pubmed: 17957077
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Mar;473(3):891-9
pubmed: 24874116
Int Orthop. 2018 Oct;42(10):2475-2481
pubmed: 29569138
Radiother Oncol. 2005 Apr;75(1):48-53
pubmed: 15948265
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Sep;40(9):1087-94
pubmed: 24655802
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2015 Jun;16(3):267-75
pubmed: 25812073
Recent Results Cancer Res. 2009;179:75-84
pubmed: 19230536
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jun;473(6):2079-87
pubmed: 25832007
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jun;90(6):1265-71
pubmed: 18519320