Background Limb salvage surgery (LSS) with endoprosthetic replacement is the most common method of reconstruction following bone tumor resection in the adult population. The risk of a postoperative infection developing is high when compared with conventional arthroplasty and there are no appropriate guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis. Questions/purposes We sought to answer the following questions: (1) What is the overall risk of deep infection and the causative organism in lower-extremity long-bone tumor surgery with endoprosthetic reconstruction? (2) What antibiotic regimens are used with endoprosthetic reconstruction? (3) Is there a correlation between infection and either duration of postoperative antibiotics or sample size? Methods We conducted a systematic review of the literature for clinical studies that reported infection rates in adults with primary bony malignancies of the lower extremity treated with surgery and endoprosthetic reconstruction. The search included articles published in English between 1980 and July 2011. Results The systematic literature review yielded 48 studies reporting on a total of 4838 patients. The overall pooled weighted infection rate for lower-extremity LSS with endoprosthetic reconstruction was approximately 10% (95% CI, 8%-11%), with the most common causative organism reported to be Gram-positive bacteria in the majority of cases. The pooled weighted infection rate was 13% after short-term postoperative antibiotics and 8% after long-term postoperative antibiotics. There was no correlation between sample size and infection rate. Conclusions Infection rates of 10% are high when compared with rates for conventional arthroplasty. Our results suggest that long-term antibiotic prophylaxis decreases the risk of deep infection. However, the data should be interpreted with caution owing to the retrospective nature of the studies.

Background Small case series suggest that preoperative transcatheter arterial embolization minimizes bleeding and facilitates surgery for hypervascular metastatic bone tumors. However, control groups would make our confidence in clinical recommendations stronger, but small patient numbers make prospective trials difficult to conduct on this topic. Questions/purposes In this case-control study, we asked whether (1) patients who undergo embolization have less estimated blood loss and/or shorter operative time than patients who do not have embolization; (2) larger tumor size, greater initial tumor vascularity, and longer interval from embolization to surgery are associated with greater estimated blood loss and packed red blood cell transfusion volume; and (3) embolization does not affect renal function in patients with normal preoperative renal function. Methods We retrospectively reviewed records of patients with hypervascular bone metastases treated at our institution between 1998 and 2008. Twenty-seven patients with renal cell carcinoma and 12 with thyroid carcinoma who underwent embolization before 41 surgical procedures were matched to 41 patients who did not have embolization with respect to age, diagnosis, tumor size and potential vascularity, and procedure type; matching was performed without knowledge of outcomes. In univariate and multivariate analyses, age, tumor size, use of embolization, surgery type and risk, embolization-to-surgery interval, and degree of devascularization were evaluated for correlations with estimated blood loss, packed red blood cell transfusion volume, operative time, and postembolization renal function. Results Overall, patients who had embolization had less mean estimated blood loss (0.90 versus 1.77 L; p = 0.002), packed red blood cell transfusion volume (2.15 versus 3.56 U; p = 0.020), and operative time

Introduction: Surgical management of Giant Cell Tumor of Bone of the distal radius (GCTDR) remains controversial due to risk of local recurrence (LR) offset by functional limitations which result from en-bloc resection. This study aims to determine the oncologic and functional outcomes of wide excision (WE) vs intralesional curettage (IC) of GCTDR.Methods: A complete search of the applicable literature was done. Included studies reported on patients from the same cohort who were surgically treated for GCTDR with WE or IC. Two reviewers independently assessed all papers. The primary outcome measure was LR.Results: One-hundred-forty-one patients from six studies were included: 60 treated with WE, and 81 with IC. Five WE patients (8%) suffered LR whereas 25 IC patients (31%) did. The odds of LR were three times less in the WE group vs the IC group. MSTS1993 scores, where available, were on average 'good' with WE and 'excellent' with IC.Conclusions: Within statistical limitations the data support an attempt, where feasible, at wrist joint preservation and superior function with IC. Intralesional curettage is reasonable when the functional benefit outweighs the risk of recurrence as is the case in many cases of GCT of the distal radius.

No abstract