Distal Femur Megaprostheses in Orthopedic Oncology: Evaluation of a Standardized Post-Operative Rehabilitation Protocol.
functionality
megaprosthesis
orthopedic oncology
physical therapy
rehabilitation
Journal
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2227-9032
Titre abrégé: Healthcare (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101666525
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Nov 2023
19 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
18
10
2023
revised:
07
11
2023
accepted:
16
11
2023
medline:
24
11
2023
pubmed:
24
11
2023
entrez:
24
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Megaprostheses are the most used reconstructive approach for patients who have undergone massive resection of their distal femurs due to bone tumors. Although the literature about their outcomes has flourished in recent decades, to date, a consensus on rehabilitative treatment is yet to be established. In this study, we report on our experience with our latest standardized rehabilitation program, evaluating our results in a mid-to-long-term scenario. We evaluated the functional results of all our oncologic patients treated between 2016 and 2022 who could follow our standardized post-operative rehabilitative approach, consisting of progressive knee mobilization and early weight-bearing. Sixteen cases were included in our study. The average duration of the patients' hospitalization was 12.2 days. A standing position was reached on average 4.1 days after surgery, while assisted walking was started 4.5 days after surgery. After a mean post-operative follow-up of 46.7 months, our patients' mean MSTS score was 23.2 (10-30). Our data suggest that the sooner patients could achieve a standing position (R = -0.609; Rehabilitation should be considered a pivotal factor in decreeing the success of distal femur megaprosthetic implants in long-surviving oncologic patients. Correct rehabilitation, focused on early mobilization and progressive weight-bearing, is crucial to maximizing the post-operative functional outcomes of these patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Megaprostheses are the most used reconstructive approach for patients who have undergone massive resection of their distal femurs due to bone tumors. Although the literature about their outcomes has flourished in recent decades, to date, a consensus on rehabilitative treatment is yet to be established. In this study, we report on our experience with our latest standardized rehabilitation program, evaluating our results in a mid-to-long-term scenario.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
We evaluated the functional results of all our oncologic patients treated between 2016 and 2022 who could follow our standardized post-operative rehabilitative approach, consisting of progressive knee mobilization and early weight-bearing.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sixteen cases were included in our study. The average duration of the patients' hospitalization was 12.2 days. A standing position was reached on average 4.1 days after surgery, while assisted walking was started 4.5 days after surgery. After a mean post-operative follow-up of 46.7 months, our patients' mean MSTS score was 23.2 (10-30). Our data suggest that the sooner patients could achieve a standing position (R = -0.609;
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Rehabilitation should be considered a pivotal factor in decreeing the success of distal femur megaprosthetic implants in long-surviving oncologic patients. Correct rehabilitation, focused on early mobilization and progressive weight-bearing, is crucial to maximizing the post-operative functional outcomes of these patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37998476
pii: healthcare11222984
doi: 10.3390/healthcare11222984
pmc: PMC10671754
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Knee Surg. 2016 Apr;29(3):201-17
pubmed: 26963074
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. ;31(4 suppl 1):43-50
pubmed: 29185295
J Arthroplasty. 2023 Apr;38(4):638-643
pubmed: 36947505
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023 Jan 27;18(1):68
pubmed: 36707881
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017 Sep;69(9):1360-1368
pubmed: 27813347
Cancer Control. 2022 Jan-Dec;29:10732748221099219
pubmed: 35499495
J BUON. 2011 Oct-Dec;16(4):617-26
pubmed: 22331712
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2018 Jun 15;26(12):e249-e257
pubmed: 29781818
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Mar;473(3):820-30
pubmed: 24964884
J Phys Ther Sci. 2015 Jul;27(7):2409-12
pubmed: 26311992
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Nov 7;14(1):346
pubmed: 31699134
J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2012 Sep;10(22):254-7
pubmed: 23281462
J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2015;25(4):337-43
pubmed: 26852643
Arthroplasty. 2022 Dec 1;4(1):50
pubmed: 36451228
Surg Oncol. 2023 Jun;48:101944
pubmed: 37062091
J Orthop Case Rep. 2019 Jan-Feb;9(1):37-40
pubmed: 31245316
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Feb;99(7):e19136
pubmed: 32049833
Int Orthop. 2018 Apr;42(4):927-938
pubmed: 29427125
PM R. 2021 Oct;13(10):1069-1078
pubmed: 33352007
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Aug;468(8):2198-210
pubmed: 20033359
J Bone Oncol. 2022 Sep 05;36:100452
pubmed: 36105628
Knee Surg Relat Res. 2020 Apr 9;32(1):18
pubmed: 32660578