Cemented vs uncemented megaprostheses in proximal femur metastases: a multicentric comparative study.
Megaprostheses
Metastases
Proximal femur
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Sep 2022
06 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
01
08
2022
accepted:
04
08
2022
entrez:
6
9
2022
pubmed:
7
9
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36068628
doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05726-7
pii: 10.1186/s12891-022-05726-7
pmc: PMC9450228
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bone Cements
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1068Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Janssen SJ, Kortlever JTP, Ready JE, Raskin KA, Ferrone ML, Hornicek FJ, et al. Complications after surgical Management of Proximal Femoral Metastasis: a retrospective study of 417 patients. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24:483–94.
pubmed: 27227983
doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00043
Capanna R, Piccioli A, Di Martino A, Daolio PA, Ippolito V, Maccauro G, et al. Management of long bone metastases: recommendations from the Italian Orthopaedic society bone metastasis study group. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2014;14:1127–34.
pubmed: 25151850
doi: 10.1586/14737140.2014.947691
Guzik G. Oncological and functional results after surgical treatment of bone metastases at the proximal femur. BMC Surg. 2018;18:5.
pubmed: 29370790
pmcid: 5784608
doi: 10.1186/s12893-018-0336-0
Spinelli MS, Ziranu A, Piccioli A, Maccauro G. Surgical treatment of acetabular metastasis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016;20(14):3005–10.
pubmed: 27460727
Piccioli A, Spinelli MS, Maccauro G. Impending fracture: a difficult diagnosis. Injury. 2014;45(Suppl 6):S138–41.
pubmed: 25457334
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.038
Perisano C, Scaramuzzo L, De Santis V, Piccioli A, Ziranu A, Barone C, et al. Quality of life following surgical treatment of lower limb metastases in long bone. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015;29:501–7.
pubmed: 26122243
Calabró T, Van Rooyen R, Piraino I, Pala E, Trovarelli G, Panagopoulos GN, et al. Reconstruction of the proximal femur with a modular resection prosthesis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016;26:415–21.
pubmed: 27040404
doi: 10.1007/s00590-016-1764-0
Schmolders J, Koob S, Schepers P, Pennekamp PH, Gravius S, Wirtz DC, et al. Lower limb reconstruction in tumor patients using modular silver-coated megaprostheses with regard to perimegaprosthetic joint infection: a case series, including 100 patients and review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017;137:149–53.
pubmed: 27783140
doi: 10.1007/s00402-016-2584-8
Pala E, Mavrogenis AF, Angelini A, Henderson ER, Douglas Letson G, Ruggieri P. Cemented versus cementless endoprostheses for lower limb salvage surgery. J BUON. 2013;18:496–503.
pubmed: 23818368
Gosheger G, Gebert C, Ahrens H, Streitbuerger A, Winkelmann W, Hardes J. Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;450:164–71.
pubmed: 16691142
doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000223978.36831.39
Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR, Kermani C, Gotha H. Survivorship and clinical outcome of modular endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplastic disease of the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006;88:790–5.
pubmed: 16720775
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B6.17519
Maccauro G, Cittadini A, Casarci M, Muratori F, De Angelis D, Piconi C, et al. Methotrexate-added acrylic cement: biological and physical properties. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;18:839–44.
pubmed: 17203414
doi: 10.1007/s10856-006-0036-7
Rosa MA, Maccauro G, Sgambato A, Ardito R, Falcone G, De Santis V, et al. Acrylic cement added with antiblastics in the treatment of bone metastases. ultrastructural and in vitro analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85:712–6.
pubmed: 12892195
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.85B5.13588
Cheng H, Chen BP-H, Soleas IM, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Hinoul P. Prolonged operative duration increases risk of surgical site infections: a systematic review. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017;18:722–35.
pubmed: 28832271
doi: 10.1089/sur.2017.089
Yang T-H, Yang R-S, Lin C-P, Tseng T-H. Bone cement implantation syndrome in bone tumor surgeries: incidence, risk factors, and clinical experience. Orthop Surg. 2021;13:109–15.
pubmed: 33274603
doi: 10.1111/os.12842
Hines CB. Understanding bone cement implantation syndrome. AANA J. 2018;86:433–41.
pubmed: 31584416
Bischel OE, Suda AJ, Böhm PM, Lehner B, Bitsch RG, Seeger JB. En-bloc resection of metastases of the proximal femur and reconstruction by modular arthroplasty is not only justified in patients with a curative treatment option-an observational study of a consecutive series of 45 patients. J Clin Med. 2020;9(3):758.
pubmed: 32168829
pmcid: 7141379
doi: 10.3390/jcm9030758
Ziranu A, Lillo M, Fantoni M, Maffulli N, Maccauro G. Single dose cefazolin is safe and effective for pre-operative prophylaxis in orthopaedic oncology. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2018;32(6 Suppl. 1):45–9.
pubmed: 30644281
Mutars femore. http://taliafarma.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/MUTARS-Proximal-Femur.pdf . Accessed 4 Sept 2021.
https://linknederland.nl/_cache/link/media/kwasi94816/Link_Nederland_Mega_C_Implantaten_amp_instrumenten_amp_operatietechniek_09_2019.pdf?hash=ed2ca4d74c1d605c . Accessed 4 Sept 2021.
Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36:309–32.
pubmed: 18538699
doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.002
Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;(286):241–6.
Mirels H. Metastatic disease in long bones: a proposed scoring system for diagnosing impending pathologic fractures. 1989. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;415 Suppl:S4–13.
doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000093045.56370.dd
Hage WD, Aboulafia AJ, Aboulafia DM. Incidence, location, and diagnostic evaluation of metastatic bone disease. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000;31(515–28):vii.
pubmed: 11043092
Sherry HS, Levy RN, Siffert RS. Metastatic disease of bone in orthopedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;44–52.
Riccio AI, Wodajo FM, Malawer M. Metastatic carcinoma of the long bones. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76:1489–94.
pubmed: 18052014
Mittermayer F, Krepler P, Dominkus M, Schwameis E, Sluga M, Heinzl H, et al. Long-term followup of uncemented tumor endoprostheses for the lower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001:167–77.
Griffin AM, Parsons JA, Davis AM, Bell RS, Wunder JS. Uncemented tumor endoprostheses at the knee: root causes of failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;438:71–9.
pubmed: 16131872
doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000180050.27961.8a
Sim I-W, Tse LF, Ek ET, Powell GJ, Choong PFM. Salvaging the limb salvage: management of complications following endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumours around the knee. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:796–802.
pubmed: 17291709
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2006.10.007
Bischel OE, Böhm PM. The use of a femoral revision stem in the treatment of primary or secondary bone tumours of the proximal femur: a prospective study of 31 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1435–41.
pubmed: 20884984
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B10.24024
Potter BK, Chow VE, Adams SC, Letson GD, Temple HT. Endoprosthetic proximal femur replacement: metastatic versus primary tumors. Surg Oncol. 2009;18:343–9.
pubmed: 18835153
doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2008.08.007
Xix Congresso Nazionale S.I.C.O.O.P. Societa’ Italiana Chirurghi Ortopedici Dell’Ospedalita’ Privata Accreditata, Ferrara PE, Salini S, Amabile E, Nigito C, Ferriero C, et al. Functional outcome and multidimensional evaluation of patients with Mutars® reconstructions post lower limb tumor resection and rehabilitation: preliminary results. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2019;33(2 Suppl. 1):155–61.
Piccioli A, Donati F, Giacomo GD, Ziranu A, Careri S, Spinelli MS, et al. Infective complications in tumour endoprostheses implanted after pathological fracture of the limbs. Injury. 2016;47:S22–8.
pubmed: 27568843
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.07.054
Vitiello R, Bellieni A, Oliva MS, Di Capua B, Fusco D, Careri S, et al. The importance of geriatric and surgical co-management of elderly in muscoloskeletal oncology: a literature review. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2020;12(Suppl 1):8662.
pubmed: 32913597
Steensma M, Boland PJ, Morris CD, Athanasian E, Healey JH. Endoprosthetic treatment is more durable for pathologic proximal femur fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:920–6.
pubmed: 21879407
doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2047-z
Harvey N, Ahlmann ER, Allison DC, Wang L, Menendez LR. Endoprostheses last longer than intramedullary devices in proximal femur metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:684–91.
pubmed: 21879409
doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2038-0
Houdek MT, Wyles CC, Labott JR, Rose PS, Taunton MJ, Sim FH. Durability of hemiarthroplasty for pathologic proximal femur fractures. J Arthroplast. 2017;32:3607–10.
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.06.040
Ruggieri P, Mavrogenis AF, Casadei R, Errani C, Angelini A, Calabrò T, et al. Protocol of surgical treatment of long bone pathological fractures. Injury. 2010;41:1161–7.
pubmed: 20947077
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.09.018
Angelini A, Trovarelli G, Berizzi A, Pala E, Breda A, Maraldi M, et al. Treatment of pathologic fractures of the proximal femur. Injury. 2018;49:S77–83.
pubmed: 30415673
doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.09.044
D’Adamio S, Ziranu A, Cazzato G, Sanguinetti M, Manicone PF, Rosa MA, et al. Antifungal properties of silver coating on tumour endoprostheses: an in vitro study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019;23(2 Suppl):252–7.
pubmed: 30977892
D’Adamio S, Cazzato G, Ziranu A, Sgambato A, Rosa MA, Maccauro G. Soft tissue adhesion patterns over Trevira tube on modular endoprosthesis for malignant bone tumours: an in vitro study. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2017;31(4 suppl 1):37–42.
pubmed: 29181955
Graci C, Maccauro G, Muratori F, Spinelli MS, Rosa MA, Fabbriciani C. Infection following bone tumor resection and reconstruction with tumoral prostheses: a literature review. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2010;23:1005–13.
pubmed: 21244750
doi: 10.1177/039463201002300405
Oliva MS, Vitiello R, Cauteruccio M, Pesare E, Rovere G, Meschini C, et al. Cemented versus cementless megaprosthesis in proximal femur metastatic disease: a systematic review. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2020;12(Suppl 1):8689.
pubmed: 32913616
pmcid: 7459367
Donati F, Di Giacomo G, D’Adamio S, Ziranu A, Careri S, Ma R, et al. Silver-coated hip Megaprosthesis in oncological limb savage surgery. Biomed Res Int. 2016;20:1–6.
doi: 10.1155/2016/9079041
Donati F, Di Giacomo G, Ziranu A, Spinelli S, Perisano C, Rosa MA, et al. Silver coated prosthesis in oncological limb salvage surgery reduce the infection rate. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015;29(4 Suppl):149–55.
pubmed: 26652484
Meding JB, Ritter MA, Davis KE, Hillery M. Cemented and uncemented total hip arthroplasty using the same femoral component. Hip Int. 2016;26:62–6.
pubmed: 26449330
doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000296
Mavrogenis AF, Pala E, Romagnoli C, Romantini M, Calabro T, Ruggieri P. Survival analysis of patients with femoral metastases. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105:135–41.
pubmed: 21815154
doi: 10.1002/jso.22061
Piccioli A, Spinelli MS, Forsberg JA, Wedin R, Healey JH, Ippolito V, et al. How do we estimate survival? External validation of a tool for survival estimation in patients with metastatic bone disease-decision analysis and comparison of three international patient populations. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:424.
pubmed: 25998535
pmcid: 4443666
doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1396-5
Lane JM, Sculco TP, Zolan S. Treatment of pathological fractures of the hip by endoprosthetic replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980;62:954–9.
pubmed: 7430183
doi: 10.2106/00004623-198062060-00011
Ward WG, Spang J, Howe D. Metastatic disease of the femur. Surgical management. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000;31:633–45.
pubmed: 11043102
doi: 10.1016/S0030-5898(05)70181-4
Errani C, Mavrogenis AF, Cevolani L, Spinelli S, Piccioli A, Maccauro G, et al. Treatment for long bone metastases based on a systematic literature review. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2017;27:205–11.
pubmed: 27650452
doi: 10.1007/s00590-016-1857-9
Schneiderbauer MM, von Knoch M, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS, Sim FH, Scully SP. Patient survival after hip arthroplasty for metastatic disease of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1684–9.
pubmed: 15292415
doi: 10.2106/00004623-200408000-00011
Ampil FL, Sadasivan KK. Prophylactic and therapeutic fixation of weight-bearing long bones with metastatic cancer. South Med J. 2001;94:394–6.
pubmed: 11332904
doi: 10.1097/00007611-200194040-00007
Xix Congresso Nazionale S.I.C.O.O.P. Societa’ Italiana Chirurghi Ortopedici Dell’Ospedalita’ Privata Accreditata, Oliva MS, Masci G, Vitiello R, De Santis V, Liuzza F, et al. Hip megaprosthesis in oncological surgery: open questions. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2019;33(2 Suppl. 1):45–9.
El Ezzo O, Oliva MS, Cauteruccio M, Saracco M, Vitiello R, Maccauro G, et al. Innovations in prevention of infections in oncological megaprostheses: a narrative review. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020;34(4 Suppl. 3):275–8 Congress of the Italian Orthopaedic Research Society.
pubmed: 33261289