Management of complications of mega-implants following treatment of primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 10 2023
16 10 2023
Historique:
received:
07
02
2023
accepted:
14
10
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
17
10
2023
entrez:
16
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In recent years, indications for implanting mega-implants were established in managing major bone defects linked to revision arthroplasty due to loosening, periprosthetic fractures, re-implantation following periprosthetic joint infection, non-union following fractures as well as complex intraarticular primary fractures. This study was conducted to discuss and analyze the strategy of diagnosis and management of complications following the use of mega-implants in treating primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities. This is a monocentric retrospective study. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent implantation of a megaendoprosthesis due to periprosthetic or primary fractures of the lower extremity between January 2010 and February 2023 were identified from the authors' hospital information system. We identified 96 patients with equal numbers of fractures (71 periprosthetic fractures and 25 primary fractures). 90 cases out of 96 were investigated in this study. The drop-out rate was 6.25% (six cases). The average follow-up period was 22 months (1 to 8 years) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. The diagnosis of complications was provided on the basis of subjective symptoms, clinical signs, radiological findings and laboratory investigations such as C-reactive protein, leucocyte count and the microbiological findings. The indications for implantations of modular mega-implants of the lower extremities were periprosthetic fractures (65 cases/72.22%) and primary fractures (25 cases/27.78%). Pathological fractures due to malignancy were encountered in 23 cases (25.56%), in one case due to primary tumor (1.11%) and 22 cases due to metastatic lesions (24.44%). Two cases (2.22%) presented with primary intraarticular fractures with severe osteoporosis and primary arthrosis. In all cases with malignancy staging was performed. Regarding localization, proximal femur replacement was encountered in 60 cases (66.67%), followed by distal femur replacement (28 cases/31.11%) and total femur replacement (2 cases/2.22%). The overall complication rate was 23.33% (21 complications in 21 patients). The most common complication was dislocation which was encountered in nine cases (10%), all following proximal femoral replacement (9 cases out of 60, making 15% of cases with proximal femoral replacement). The second most common complication was infection (six cases, 6.67%), followed by four aseptic loosenings (4.44%), further intraoperative periprosthetic fracture in one case (1.11%) and a broken implant in one case (1.11%). We noticed no cases with wear and tear of the polyethylene components and no cases of disconnections of the modular components. Mega-endoprostheses enable versatile management options in the treatment of primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities. The rate of complications such as loosening, implant failure, dislocation and infection are within an acceptable range in this preliminary analysis. However, implantation of mega-endoprostheses must be strictly indicated due the limited salvage options following surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37845299
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-44992-w
pii: 10.1038/s41598-023-44992-w
pmc: PMC10579354
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
17594Informations de copyright
© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Orthopade. 2019 Jul;48(7):588-597
pubmed: 31127332
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Sep;450:164-71
pubmed: 16691142
Unfallchirurg. 2014 Jul;117(7):607-13
pubmed: 25030960
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Mar;475(3):708-718
pubmed: 26649558
J Surg Oncol. 2010 Apr 1;101(5):389-95
pubmed: 20119985
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
Int Orthop. 2022 Mar;46(3):523-529
pubmed: 34618195
Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2012 Jul;24(3):215-26
pubmed: 22743630
Orthopade. 2010 Oct;39(10):960-7
pubmed: 20862575
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jul;34(7):1423-1429
pubmed: 30904363
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019 Apr;477(4):894-902
pubmed: 30801278
Int Orthop. 2011 Oct;35(10):1437-44
pubmed: 20803013
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Jun;459:66-75
pubmed: 17545760
Int Orthop. 2018 May;42(5):1175-1181
pubmed: 29532112
J Arthroplasty. 2018 May;33(5):1309-1314.e2
pubmed: 29551303
J Arthroplasty. 2013 Sep;28(8):1381-5
pubmed: 23523494
Z Orthop Unfall. 2019 Aug;157(4):401-410
pubmed: 30616258
Bone Joint J. 2016 Nov;98-B(11):1463-1470
pubmed: 27803221
Bone Joint J. 2017 Mar;99-B(3):325-329
pubmed: 28249971
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Jun;(375):218-30
pubmed: 10853173
Orthopade. 2020 Feb;49(2):142-148
pubmed: 32016498
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
J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Aug 18;16(1):508
pubmed: 34407838
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A Suppl 1:S75-80
pubmed: 12540674
Z Orthop Unfall. 2022 Jun;160(3):317-323
pubmed: 33540460
Orthop Clin North Am. 1999 Apr;30(2):209-14
pubmed: 10196422
Orthopade. 2010 Oct;39(10):980-93
pubmed: 20865402
Orthopade. 2020 Feb;49(2):114-122
pubmed: 31974629
Instr Course Lect. 1995;44:293-304
pubmed: 7797866
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Sep 2;18(1):383
pubmed: 28865425
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 Dec;(345):113-24
pubmed: 9418628
Patient Saf Surg. 2016 Feb 09;10:6
pubmed: 26865860
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Jan;79(1):31-5
pubmed: 9020441
Orthopade. 2014 Jan;43(1):92-102
pubmed: 24384892
Orthopedics. 2017 Jan 1;40(1):e11-e16
pubmed: 27925637
Int Orthop. 2014 Aug;38(8):1677-84
pubmed: 24869926
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jun;90(6):1265-71
pubmed: 18519320