Background: Osteosarcoma and other primary bone malignancies are relatively common in skeletally immature patients. Current literature features case series with disparate complication rates, making it difficult for surgeons to educate patients on outcomes after limb salvage with expandable prostheses. This study aims to provide an update on complication rates, mortality, and functional outcomes in patients who undergo limb salvage with expandable prostheses for primary bone malignancies. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An exhaustive PubMed/Medline and Cochrane search of peer-reviewed published literature from 1997 to 2017 was performed, yielding a total of 1350 studies. After multiple rounds of review for inclusion and exclusion criteria, 28 retrospective studies were included. All were level IV evidence of case series and retrospective studies. Overall, this included 634 total patients and 292 patients with individual patient data. The primary outcomes studied were complication rates, mortality, and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) functional score. Secondary outcomes included complication rate subtypes, number of lengthening procedures, mean amount lengthened, and prevalence of limb length discrepancies. Results: A total of 292 patients with individual patient data averaged 10.1 years at the surgery and had a mean follow-up of 67 months. Two hundred sixteen patients (74%) had tumors of the distal femur. MSTS scores averaged 80.3 and overall mortality was 22%. Patients with distal femur tumors averaged 4.4 lengthening procedures and 43 mm lengthened. Leg length discrepancy (LLD) was 36% overall, which increased with longer periods of follow-up (P<0.001). Overall complication and revision rate was 43%, increasing to 59% in patients with 5 to 10 years of follow-up, and 89% in patients with >10 years of follow-up. Minimally invasive prostheses had lower rates of complications than noninvasive prostheses (P=0.024), specifically mechanical complications (P=0.028), mostly because of increased rates of lengthening and device failure in the noninvasive models (21% vs. 4%, P=0.0004). Conclusions: Despite its limitations, which include entirely heterogenous and retrospective case series data, this systematic review provides clinicians with pooled summary data representing the largest summary of outcomes after reconstruction with expandable prostheses to date. This analysis can assist surgeons to better understand and educate their patients and their families on functional outcomes, mortality, and complication rates after limb-sparing reconstruction with expandable prostheses for primary bone malignancies. Level of Evidence: Level IV—retrospective case series with pooled data.

No abstract

Melanoma is an aggressive type of skin cancer, which accounts for only 4% of skin cancer cases but causes around 75% of skin cancer deaths. Currently, there is a limited set of protein biomarkers that can distinguish melanoma subtypes and provide an accurate prognosis of melanoma. Thus, we have selected and profiled the proteomes of five different melanoma cell lines from different stages of progression in comparison with a normal melanocytes using tandem mass spectrometry. We also profiled the proteome of a solid metastatic melanoma tumor. This resulted in the identification of 4758 unique proteins, among which ∼200-300 differentially expressed proteins from each set were found by quantitative proteomics. Correlating protein expression with aggressiveness of each melanoma cell line and literature mining resulted in the final selection of six proteins: vimentin, nestin, fibronectin, annexin A1, dipeptidyl peptidase IV, and histone H2A1B. Validation of nestin and vimentin using 40 melanoma samples revealed pattern of protein expression can help predict melanoma aggressiveness in different subgroups of melanoma. These results, together with the combined list of 4758 expressed proteins, provide a valuable resource for selecting melanoma biomarkers in the future for the clinical and research community.

Introduction: It is important to understand the current characteristics of orthopaedic surgery program leadership, especially in the current climate of modern medicine. The purpose of this report was to describe the demographic, academic, and geographic characteristics of current orthopaedic chairs and program directors (PDs). Methods: Orthopaedic surgery residency programs were obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website and cross-referenced with the Electronic Residency Application Service, identifying 161 residency programs for the 2018 to 2019 cycle. All data were collected in January 2020 to best control for changes in leadership. Demographic and academic information were collected from public websites. For geographic analysis, the United States was divided into five regions, and training locations were categorized as appropriate. Results: A total of 153 chairs and 161 PDs were identified. 98.0% of chairs were men versus 88.8% of PDs (P = 0.001). Chairs had been in practice and in their current position for longer than PDs (26.4 vs 16.8 years [P < 0.005] and 9.1 vs 7.1 years [P = 0.014], respectively). Chairs had more publications and were more likely to be professors than PDs. PDs were more likely to remain at both the same region and institution that they trained in residency. The most common subspecialty was sports among chairs and trauma among PDs, although when compared with national averages orthopaedic trauma and orthopaedic oncology were the most overrepresented subspecialties. Conclusion: Orthopaedic chairs are more likely to be men, have had longer careers, and have more academic accomplishments than their PD counterparts. Geography appears to have an association with where our leaders end up, especially for PDs. Subspecialization does not notably influence leadership positions, although orthopaedic trauma and orthopaedic oncology surgeons are more commonly represented than expected. This report serves to identify the current state of orthopaedic leadership and may provide guidance for those who seek these leadership positions.

No abstract