Cemented and Press-fit Femoral Stems for the Management of Oncologic Femoral Tumors.
Journal
The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
ISSN: 1940-5480
Titre abrégé: J Am Acad Orthop Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9417468
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 May 2024
21 May 2024
Historique:
received:
06
11
2023
accepted:
17
03
2024
medline:
22
5
2024
pubmed:
22
5
2024
entrez:
22
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Stem fixation in reconstruction after resection of femoral tumors is debated. Cemented stems offer immediate stability but risk aseptic loosening, while press-fit stems allow bone ingrowth but risk stress shielding and subsidence. Our retrospective review aimed to determine implant failure rates and their associated factors, as well as the rates of infection, debridement, and mortality for both fixation groups (cemented or press-fit stems) used in patients undergoing resection of femoral tumor disease and subsequent arthroplasty. We retrospectively studied 252 patients who underwent resection of femoral tumors and subsequent arthroplasty using cemented (n = 173; 69%) or press-fit (noncemented) (n = 79; 31%) stems between 1999 and 2020. Implant failure was the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including rates of implant infection, debridement, and mortality. Multivariable regression was done to assess risk factors for implant failures. The study found implant failure rates of 11% and 18% for cemented stems and press-fit stems, respectively. Lower stem to diaphyseal ratios (P = 0.024) and younger patients (P = 0.008) were associated with a higher risk of implant failure in cemented stems. The infection rates were 14% and 10% for cemented and press-fit stems, respectively. Debridement rates were 16% and 13% for cemented and press-fit stems, respectively, while the 1-year mortality rate was 16% for cemented stems and 1.5% for press-fit stems. This study is the largest of its kind, providing patient characteristics and outcomes in both cemented and press-fit stems in the setting of reconstruction for femoral tumors. Both methods can be effective, with outcomes dependent on patient-specific factors, such as life expectancy, activity level, and body habitus, as well as proper implant fit. Additional studies of both implants and longer follow-up are required to elucidate the optimal fixation method for each individual patient. Level III, retrospective noncomparative study.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Stem fixation in reconstruction after resection of femoral tumors is debated. Cemented stems offer immediate stability but risk aseptic loosening, while press-fit stems allow bone ingrowth but risk stress shielding and subsidence. Our retrospective review aimed to determine implant failure rates and their associated factors, as well as the rates of infection, debridement, and mortality for both fixation groups (cemented or press-fit stems) used in patients undergoing resection of femoral tumor disease and subsequent arthroplasty.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively studied 252 patients who underwent resection of femoral tumors and subsequent arthroplasty using cemented (n = 173; 69%) or press-fit (noncemented) (n = 79; 31%) stems between 1999 and 2020. Implant failure was the primary outcome, with secondary outcomes including rates of implant infection, debridement, and mortality. Multivariable regression was done to assess risk factors for implant failures.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The study found implant failure rates of 11% and 18% for cemented stems and press-fit stems, respectively. Lower stem to diaphyseal ratios (P = 0.024) and younger patients (P = 0.008) were associated with a higher risk of implant failure in cemented stems. The infection rates were 14% and 10% for cemented and press-fit stems, respectively. Debridement rates were 16% and 13% for cemented and press-fit stems, respectively, while the 1-year mortality rate was 16% for cemented stems and 1.5% for press-fit stems.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study is the largest of its kind, providing patient characteristics and outcomes in both cemented and press-fit stems in the setting of reconstruction for femoral tumors. Both methods can be effective, with outcomes dependent on patient-specific factors, such as life expectancy, activity level, and body habitus, as well as proper implant fit. Additional studies of both implants and longer follow-up are required to elucidate the optimal fixation method for each individual patient.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Level III, retrospective noncomparative study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38773833
doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-01043
pii: 00124635-990000000-00994
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Références
Bergin PF, Noveau JB, Jelinek JS, Henshaw RM. Aseptic loosening rates in distal femoral endoprostheses: Does stem size matter? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:743.750.
Reimeringer M, Nuño N. The influence of contact ratio and its location on the primary stability of cementless total hip arthroplasty: A finite element analysis. J Biomech. 2016;49:1064-1070.
Isaac GH, Busch CA, Shetty V, Drabu KJ. Radiographic assessment of the cement mantle thickness of the femoral stem in total hip replacement: A case study of 112 consecutive implants. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2000;214:471-477.
Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ. 2007;335:806-808.
Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, Kim IW. Twenty-five- to twenty-seven-year results of a cemented vs a cementless stem in the same patients younger than 50 Years of age. The J arthroplasty. 2016;31:662-667.
Thambapillary S, Dimitriou R, Makridis KG, Fragkakis EM, Bobak P, Giannoudis PV. Implant longevity, complications and functional outcome following proximal femoral arthroplasty for musculoskeletal tumors: A systematic review. J arthroplasty. 2013;28:1381-1385.
Janssen SJ, Langerhuizen DWG, Schwab JH, Bramer JAM. Outcome after reconstruction of proximal femoral tumors: A systematic review. J Surg Oncol. 2019;119:120-129.
Ebramzadeh E, Sarmiento AMD, McKellop HA, Llinas A, Gogan WMD, California A. The cement mantle in total hip arthroplasty. Analysis of long-term radiographic results. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 1994;76, 77, 87.
Gunn E, Gundapaneni D, Goswami T. Effect of cement fill ratio in loosening of hip implants. Biomatter. 2012;2:87-93.
Kwak BM, Lim OK, Kim YY, Rim K. An investigation of the effect of cement thickness on an implant by finite element stress analysis. Int Orthopaedics. 1978;2:315-319.
Ramaniraka NA, Rakotomanana LR, Leyvraz P-F. The fixation of the cemented femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2000;82-B:297-303.
Ramos A, Fonseca F, Simões JA. Advances in Computational Bioengineering. Vol 7. WITPress; 2003:323-331.
Houdek MT, Watts CD, Wyles CC, Rose PS, Taunton MJ, Sim FH. Functional and oncologic outcome of cemented endoprosthesis for malignant proximal femoral tumors. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114:501-506.
Kemp HBS, Grimer RJ, Sneath RS, Unwin PS, Cannon SR, Walker PS. Aseptic loosening in cemented custom-made prosthetic replacements for bone tumors of the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:78-83.
Jahnke A, Engl S, Seeger JB, Basad E, Rickert M, Ishaque BA. Influences of fit and fill following hip arthroplasty using a cementless short-stem prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135:1609-1614.
Ries C, Boese CK, Dietrich F, Miehlke W, Heisel C. Femoral stem subsidence in cementless total hip arthroplasty: A retrospective single-centre study. Int Orthop. 2019;43:307-314.
Viceconti M, Brusi G, Pancanti A, Cristofolini L. Primary stability of an anatomical cementless hip stem: A statistical analysis. J Biomech. 2006;39:1169-1179.
Ishii S, Homma Y, Baba T, Ozaki Y, Matsumoto M, Kaneko K. Does the canal fill ratio and femoral morphology of Asian females influence early radiographic outcomes of total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented proximally coated, tapered-wedge stem? J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:1524-1528.
Issa K, Pivec R, Wuestemann T, Tatevossian T, Nevelos J, Mont MA. Radiographic fit and fill analysis of a new second-generation proximally coated cementless stem compared to its predicate design. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:192-198.