We report high complication rates and considerable failure rates for the use of intercalary allografts; complications primarily occurred in the first years after surgery, but some occurred much later after surgery. To reduce the number of failures, we recommend reconsidering the use of allografts for reconstructions of defects that are ≥15 cm, especially in older patients, and applying bridging osteosynthesis with use of plate fixation.

BackgroundReconstruction of periacetabular defects after pelvic tumor resection ranks among the most challenging procedures in orthopaedic oncology, and reconstructive techniques are generally associated with dissatisfying mechanical and nonmechanical complication rates. In an attempt to reduce the risk of dislocation, aseptic loosening, and infection, we introduced the LUMiC® prosthesis (implantcast, Buxtehude, Germany) in 2008. The LUMiC® prosthesis is a modular device, built of a separate stem (hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented or cemented) and acetabular cup. The stem and cup are available in different sizes (the latter of which is also available with silver coating for infection prevention) and are equipped with sawteeth at the junction to allow for rotational adjustment of cup position after implantation of the stem. Whether this implant indeed is durable at short-term followup has not been evaluated.Questions/purposes(1) What proportion of patients experience mechanical complications and what are the associated risk factors of periacetabular reconstruction with the LUMiC® after pelvic tumor resection? (2) What proportion of patients experience nonmechanical complications and what are the associated risk factors of periacetabular reconstruction with the LUMiC® after pelvic tumor resection? (3) What is the cumulative incidence of implant failure at 2 and 5 years and what are the mechanisms of reconstruction failure? (4) What is the functional outcome as assessed by Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score at final followup?MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of every patient in whom a LUMiC® prosthesis was used to reconstruct a periacetabular defect after internal hemipelvectomy for a pelvic tumor from July 2008 to June 2014 in eight centers of orthopaedic oncology with a minimum followup of 24 months. Forty-seven patients (26 men [55%]) with a mean age of 50 years (range, 12–78 years) were included. At review, 32 patients (68%) were alive. The reverse Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median followup, which was equal to 3.9 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4–4.3). During the period under study, our general indications for using this implant were reconstruction of periacetabular defects after pelvic tumor resections in which the medial ilium adjacent to the sacroiliac joint was preserved; alternative treatments included hip transposition and saddle or custom-made prostheses in some of the contributing centers; these were generally used when the medial ilium was involved in the tumorous process or if the LUMiC® was not yet available in the specific country at that time. Conventional chondrosarcoma was the predominant diagnosis (n = 22 [47%]); five patients (11%) had osseous metastases of a distant carcinoma and three (6%) had multiple myeloma. Uncemented fixation (n = 43 [91%]) was preferred. Dual-mobility cups (n = 24 [51%]) were mainly used in case of a higher presumed risk of dislocation in the early period of our study; later, dual-mobility cups became the standard for the majo...

BackgroundModular endoprostheses are commonly used to reconstruct defects of the distal femur and proximal tibia after bone tumor resection. Because limb salvage surgery for bone sarcomas is relatively new, becoming more frequently used since the 1980s, studies focusing on the long-term results of such prostheses in treatment of primary tumors are scarce.Questions/purposes(1) What proportion of patients experience a mechanical complication with the MUTARS® modular endoprosthesis when used for tumor reconstruction around the knee, and what factors may be associated with mechanical failure? (2) What are the nonmechanical complications? (3) What are the implant failure rates at 5, 10, and 15 years? (4) How often is limb salvage achieved using this prosthesis?MethodsBetween 1995 and 2010, endoprostheses were the preferred method of reconstruction after resection of the knee in adolescents and adults in our centers. During that period, we performed 114 MUTARS® knee replacements in 105 patients; no other endoprosthetic systems were used. Four patients (four of 105 [4%]) were lost to followup, leaving 110 reconstructions in 101 patients for review. The reverse Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median followup, which was equal to 8.9 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0–9.7). Mean age at surgery was 36 years (range, 13–82 years). Predominant diagnoses were osteosarcoma (n = 56 [55%]), leiomyosarcoma of bone (n = 10 [10%]), and chondrosarcoma (n = 9 [9%]). In the early period of our study, we routinely used uncemented uncoated implants for primary reconstructions. Later, hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implants were the standard. Eighty-nine reconstructions (89 of 110 [81%]) were distal femoral replacements (78 uncemented [78 of 89 {88%}, 42 of which were HA-coated [42 of 78 {54%}]) and 21 (21 of 110 [19%]) were proximal tibial replacements. In 26 reconstructions (26 of 110 [24%]), the reconstruction was performed for a failed previous reconstruction. We used a competing risk model to estimate the cumulative incidence of implant failure.ResultsComplications of soft tissue or instability occurred in seven reconstructions (seven of 110 [6%]). With the numbers we had, for uncemented distal femoral replacements, we could not detect a difference in loosening between revision (five of 17 [29%]) and primary reconstructions (eight of 61 [13%]) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.72; 95% CI, 0.55–5.38; p = 0.354). Hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented implants had a lower risk of loosening (two of 42 [5%]) than uncoated uncemented implants (11 of 36 [31%]) (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05–1.06; p = 0.060). Structural complications occurred in 15 reconstructions (15 of 110 [14%]). Infections occurred in 14 reconstructions (14 of 110 [13%]). Ten patients had a local recurrence (10 of 101 [10%]). With failure for mechanical reasons as the endpoint, the cumulative incidences of implant failure at 5, 10, and 15 years were 16.9% (95% CI, 9.6–24.2), 20.7% (95% CI, 12.5–28.8%), and 37.9% (95% CI, 16.1–59.7), respectively. We were able to salvage some of the f...

Osteoarticular allograft reconstructions are associated with high rates of mechanical complications. Although comparative studies with alternative techniques are scarce, the risk of mechanical failure in our opinion does not justify routine employment of osteoarticular allografts for reconstruction of large joints after tumour resection. Cite this article: 2017;99-B:522-30.

Peri-acetabular tumour resections and their subsequent reconstruction are among the most challenging procedures in orthopaedic oncology. Despite the fact that a number of different pelvic endoprostheses have been introduced, rates of complication remain high and long-term results are mostly lacking. In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate the outcome of reconstructing a peri-acetabular defect with a pedestal cup endoprosthesis after a type 2 or type 2/3 internal hemipelvectomy. A total of 19 patients (11M:8F) with a mean age of 48 years (14 to 72) were included, most of whom had been treated for a primary bone tumour (n = 16) between 2003 and 2009. After a mean follow-up of 39 months (28 days to 8.7 years) seven patients had died. After a mean follow-up of 7.9 years (4.3 to 10.5), 12 patients were alive, of whom 11 were disease-free. Complications occurred in 15 patients. Three had recurrent dislocations and three experienced aseptic loosening. There were no mechanical failures. Infection occurred in nine patients, six of whom required removal of the prosthesis. Two patients underwent hindquarter amputation for local recurrence. The implant survival rate at five years was 50% for all reasons, and 61% for non-oncological reasons. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score at final follow-up was 49% (13 to 87). Based on these poor results, we advise caution if using the pedestal cup for reconstruction of a peri-acetabular tumour resection.

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Improved survival rates for patients with primary bone tumors of the extremities have increased the demand for reliable and durable reconstruction techniques. Some authors have stated that, after successful ingrowth, allografts are a durable long-term solution. This hypothesis is largely based on small studies with short-to-midterm follow-up. In order to determine the durability of intercalary allograft reconstructions in the lower extremities, we evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes at a minimum of 10 years. Methods: All patients who received an intercalary allograft reconstruction in a lower extremity between 1980 and 2006 were included in this retrospective multicenter cohort study. One hundred and thirty-one patients with a median age of 19 years were included. Eighty-nine (68%) had a femoral reconstruction, and 42 (32%) had a tibial reconstruction. The most prevalent diagnoses were osteosarcoma (55%), Ewing sarcoma (17%), and chondrosarcoma (12%). The median follow-up was 14 years. A competing risk model was employed to estimate the cumulative incidences of mechanical failure and infection. Patient mortality or progression of the disease was used as a competing event. Results: Nonunion occurred in 21 reconstructions (16%), after a median of 16 months, and was associated with intramedullary nail-only fixation (p < 0.01) and fixation with nonbridging plate(s) (p = 0.03). Allograft fracture occurred in 25 reconstructions (19%) after a median of 42 months (range, 4 days to 21.9 years). Thirteen (52%) of the allograft fractures occurred within 5 years; 8 (32%), between 5 and 10 years; and 4 (16%), at >10 years. With failure for mechanical reasons as the end point, the cumulative incidences of reconstruction failure at 5, 10, and 15 years were 9%, 14%, and 21%, respectively. Conclusions: Intercalary allograft reconstruction is an acceptable reconstructive option, mainly because of the absence of superior alternatives with a known track record. However, a considerable and continuing risk of mechanical complications should be taken into account. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract