Advances in modular endoprosthetic reconstruction of osseous defects

Current Opinion in Orthopaedics

Volumn 14, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 429-437

  Henshaw, Robert M ^c   Malawer, Martin M ^a,b  

^a WASHINGTON CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c Orthopedic Oncology   (United States)

Author keywords

Bone tumor; Endoprosthesis; Modular; Prosthesis; Reconstruction; Sarcoma

Indexed keywords

AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARM; BONE DEFECT; BONE MATURATION; BONE TUMOR; CANCER SURGERY; ENDOPROSTHESIS; FEMUR; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMAN; HUMERUS; IMPLANTATION; INSTITUTIONAL CARE; JOINT PROSTHESIS; KNEE PROSTHESIS; LEG; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; PEDIATRIC SURGERY; PELVIC GIRDLE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SHOULDER GIRDLE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SURGICAL ANATOMY; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TIBIA; TREATMENT INDICATION;

EID: 0242607062     PISSN: 10419918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001433-200312000-00012     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Eckardt JJ, Kabo JM, Ward WG, et al.: The UCLA experience with 227 modular endoprostheses. In American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 70th Annual Meeting Proceedings. New Orleans, LA: AAOS; 2003:526. Single-institution review of 227 modular implants showing low risk of complications and detailing modes of failure unique to modular implants.
2. Wodajo FM, Wittig JC, Graney KK, et al.: Low complication rate with limb-sparing resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction: survival analysis of 251 patients and analysis of 20-year experience. Sarcoma 2002, 6:63-74 CTOS Supplement 1. Single-institution review of 251 patients with endoprosthetic reconstructions over a period of 20 years detailing types of complications and prosthetic survival. Overall modular prosthesis survival was 94% at a median of 30 months and 86% at 5 years.
3. Zeegan E, Aponte L, Hornicek F, et al.: Survivorship analysis of 141 modular metallic endoprostheses. Sarcoma 2002, 6:63-74 CTOS Supplement 1. Single-institution study of 141 implants with short-term follow-up, showing overall implant survival of 91%.
4. Wittig J, Bickels J, Wodajo F, et al.: Utilitarian shoulder approach for malignant tumor resection. Orthopedics 2002, 25:479-484.
5. Wodajo FM, Bickels J, Wittig JC, et al.: Reconstruction with scapular endoprosthesis provides superior results after total scapular resection: surgical technique and comparison to patients without endoprosthetic reconstruction. In Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. Toronto, Canada: 2002, 53. Retrospective review of functional results in 23 patients with total scapular resections, seven reconstructed with a scapular endoprosthesis. The prosthesis group had improved functional scores, significantly improved abduction, and cosmesis with no prosthetic failures.
6. Wittig JC, Bickels J, Wodajo F, et al.: Constrained total scapula reconstruction after resection of a high-grade sarcoma. Clin Orthop 2002, 397:143-155. Initial report of a new design for a scapular endoprosthesis using a snap-fit constrained mechanism between the humerus and scapular components. Discussion of clinical indications, prosthetic design, surgical technique, and early functional results.
7. Wittig JC, Bickels J, Kellar-Graney KL, et al.: Osteosarcoma of the proximal humerus: long-term results with limb-sparing surgery. Clin Orthop 2002, 397::156-176. Retrospective review of 23 patients with osteosarcoma treated with extra-articular resections and endoprosthetic reconstruction with local muscle transfers. No local recurrences or prosthetic failures occurred. Patients reported good to excellent functional outcome scores.
8. Bickels J, Wittig J, Kollender Y, et al.: Limb-sparing resections of the shoulder girdle. J Am Coll Surg 2002, 194:422-435.
9. Kulkarni A, Fiorenza F, Grimer RJ, et al.: The results of endoprosthetic replacement for tumours of the distal humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003, 85:240-243. Retrospective analysis of 10 patients with successful endoprosthetic reconstruction of the distal humerus.
10. Aboulafia AJ, Buch R, Mathews J, et al.: Reconstruction using the saddle prosthesis following excision of primary and metastatic periacetabular tumors. Clin Orthop 1995, (314):203-213.
11. Benevenia J, Patterson F, Cyran FP, et al.: Treatment of advanced metastatic lesions of the acetabulum using the iliofemoral (saddle) prosthesis. In Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. MSTS, Chicago, IL: 2003:25.
12. Ilyas I, Pant R, Kurar A, et al.: Modular megaprosthesis for proximal femoral tumors. Int Orthop 2002, 26:170-173. Retrospective review of 15 endoprosthetic reconstructions of the proximal femur, with a 20% rate of hip dislocation.
13. Bickels J, Meller I, Henshaw RM, et al.: Reconstruction of hip stability after proximal and total femur resections. Clin Orthop 2000, (375):218-230.
14. Ogilvie CM, Bell RS, Wunder JS, et al.: Functional outcome of proximal femoral replacement with an endoprosthesis. In Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. MSTS, Chicago, IL: 2003:29. Retrospective evaluation of functional outcome of 33 patients after proximal femoral replacement. All three patients who dislocated had total hip reconstructions; none of the bipolar heads dislocated.
15. Bickels J, Wittig JC, Kollender Y, et al.: Distal femur resection with endoprosthetic reconstruction: a long-term followup study. Clin Orthop 2002, (400):225-235. Multi-institutional review of 110 patients with distal femur resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction. The overall prosthetic survival was 93% at 5 years and 88% at 10 years.
16. Plotz W, Rechl H, Burgkart R, et al.: Limb salvage with tumor endoprostheses for malignant tumors of the knee. Clin Orthop 2002, (405):207-215. Report on 64 consecutive knee endoprostheses between 1976 and 1996. Fifty-eight reoperations were performed in 29 patients because of complications. The probability of survival of the leg of the patient after 10 years was 95%.
17. Brown A, Parsons J, Martino C, et al.: Work status after distal femoral Kotz reconstruction for malignant tumors of bone. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003, 84:62-68. Prospective analysis of disability and work status for 36 patients undergoing resection, modular reconstruction, and chemotherapy for malignant tumors of the distal femur.
18. Lee Y, Eckardt JJ: Rotating hinge knee mechanisms and tumor endoprostheses: 22 years experience. In Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. MSTS, Chicago, IL: 2003:50.
19. Bickels J, Wittig J, Kollender Y, et al.: Reconstruction of the extensor mechanism after proximal tibia endoprosthetic replacement. J Arthroplasty 2001, 16:856-862.
20. Krepler P, Toma C, Dominkus M, et al.: Strategy of limb salvage for children with primary malignant tumors under the age of ten. In American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 70th Annual Meeting Proceedings. New Orleans, LA: AAOS; 2003:564.
21. Schwameis E, Dominkus M, Krepler P, et al.: Reconstruction of the pelvis after tumor resection in children and adolescents. Clin Orthop 2002, (402):207-215. Review of 30 pediatric patients treated with limb sparing surgery for pelvic tumors, including 10 endoprosthetic reconstructions. Correlates functional outcome with extent of bone and soft tissue resection.
22. Belthur M, Grimer R, Suneja R, et al.: Extensible endoprostheses for bone tumors of the proximal femur in children. J Pediatr Orthop 2003, 23:230-235.
23. Kenan S: Long-term results of total femur replacement in children with malignant bone tumors. In American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 70th Annual Meeting Proceedings. New Orleans, LA: AAOS; 2003:617.
24. Neel M, Heck R, Britton L, et al.: Early experience with a press fit stem to preserve physeal growth following endoprosthetic replacement after tumor resection about the knee. In Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. MSTS, Chicago, IL: 2003:26.
25. Eckardt JJ, Kabo JM, Ward W, et al.: A review of eight Morse taper failures in endoprosthetic reconstructions. In Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. MSTS, Chicago, IL: 2003:28.
26. Wodajo FM, Kellar-Graney K, Bickels J, et al.: Management of problems with endoprosthetic reconstruction after segmental bone resections: analysis of 239 patients and 20-year experience. In Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. MSTS, Chicago, IL: 2003:26.
27. Wodajo F, Ho Y, Malawer M: metaplastic "pseudomeniscus" formation: an unusual cause of knee pain and locking unique to rotating-hinge knee segmental endoprostheses. In Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. MSTS, Chicago, IL: 2003:47.
28. Mittermayer F, Windhager R, Dominkus M, et al.: Revision of the Kotz type of tumour endoprosthesis for the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002, 84:401-406. Single-institution review of 251 patients treated over a period of 15 years with uncemented endoprostheses of the lower limb. The probability of a patient avoiding aseptic loosening for 10 years was 96% for a proximal femoral, 76% for a distal femoral, and 85% for a proximal tibial implant. Successful revision of all patients treated for aseptic loosening.
29. Springfield DS: Revision of the Kotz type of tumour endoprosthesis for the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002, 84:1206; author reply 1206.
30. Wicat P, Mascard E, Missenard G, et al.: Rotationplasty after failure of a knee prosthesis for a malignant tumour of the distal femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002, 84:865-869.
31. Kim H, Athanasian E, Morris C, et al.: Results of revision megaprostheses for tumors around the knee. In American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, 70th Annual Meeting Proceedings. New Orleans, LA: AAOS; 2003:618.