A systematic review of endoprosthetic replacement for non-tumour indications around the knee joint

Korim, M.T.; Esler, Colin; Reddy, V. R. M.; Ashford, Robert U.

doi:10.1016/j.knee.2013.09.001

Cited by 36 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results slightly differ from those of the previously published literature: Berend and Lombardi [18] found encouraging results with an overall reoperation-free survival of 97% at 1 year, 95% at 2 years, and 83% at 5 years after distal femoral replacement. On the contrary the systematic reviews by Korim et al [6, 7] pointed out a mean failure rate of 76% at 3.8 years for proximal femoral prostheses [6] and 83% at 3.3 years for distal femoral prostheses [7]. We may explain such discrepancies by assuming that our survival analysis was carried out considering failures according to Henderson et al [16] rather than overall reoperations as endpoints.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Two recent systematic reviews [6, 7] focused on the widespread use of modular endoprostheses for nonneoplastic conditions. Authors found an overall midterm survival rate of 76% for proximal femoral prostheses [6] and 83% for distal femoral prostheses [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Authors found an overall midterm survival rate of 76% for proximal femoral prostheses [6] and 83% for distal femoral prostheses [7]. Notably, posttraumatic, infective, and periprosthetic conditions have peculiar characteristics that are very different to those of oncologic patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Modular Endoprostheses for Nonneoplastic Conditions: Midterm Complications and Survival

Gori

Scoccianti

Frenos

et al. 2016

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of modular endoprostheses is a viable option to manage both tumor resection and severe bone loss due to nonneoplastic conditions such as fracture sequelae, failed osteoarticular grafts, arthroplasty revisions, and periprosthetic fractures. We sought to investigate both midterm complications and failures occurred in 87 patients who underwent a megaprosthetic reconstruction in a nonneoplastic setting. After a mean follow-up of 58 (1–167) months, overall failure-free survival was 91.5% at 1 year, 80% at 2 years, 71.6% at 5 years, and 69.1% at 5 and 10 years. There was no significant difference in the survival rate according to the diagnosis at the index procedure (p = 0.921), nor to the reconstruction site (p = 0.402). The use of megaprostheses in a postneoplastic setting did not affect survival rate in comparison with endoprosthetic reconstruction of pure nonneoplastic conditions (p = 0.851). Perimegaprosthetic infection was the leading complication, occurring in 10 (11.5%) patients and implying a megaprosthetic revision in all but one case. Physicians should consider these results when discussing with patients desired outcomes of endoprosthetic reconstructions of a nonneoplastic disease.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modular Endoprostheses for Nonneoplastic Conditions: Midterm Complications and Survival

Gori

Scoccianti

Frenos

et al. 2016

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Seven of 22 had the twostage exchange immediately before endoprosthetic implantation. For comparison, previously reported infection history preimplantation has ranged from 16% to 20% for distal and 4% to 16% for diaphyseal endoprostheses [10,11,20]. Previously reported infection risk after endoprosthetic reconstruction of various lengths for revision arthroplasty in the nononcologic setting have varied from 13% to 35% for distal through total femoral replacements [1,2,6,[10][11][12]20].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For comparison, previously reported infection history preimplantation has ranged from 16% to 20% for distal and 4% to 16% for diaphyseal endoprostheses [10,11,20]. Previously reported infection risk after endoprosthetic reconstruction of various lengths for revision arthroplasty in the nononcologic setting have varied from 13% to 35% for distal through total femoral replacements [1,2,6,[10][11][12]20]. Our high proportion of patients with a PJI history compared with previously reported cohorts likely contributed to the high proportion of patients who developed postoperative infection overall in this series; however, we feel the bigger cases through larger exposures in patients with multiple comorbidities and compromised soft tissues likely all contribute to the higher prevalence in the diaphyseal group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Length of Endoprosthetic Reconstruction in Revision Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Complications and Reoperations

Barry

Thielen

Sing

et al. 2017

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Complex revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often calls for endoprosthetic reconstruction to address bone loss, poor bone quality, and soft tissue insufficiency. Larger amounts of segmental bone loss in the setting of joint replacement may be associated with greater areas of devascularized tissue, which could increase the risk of complications and worsen functional results. Questions/purposes Are longer endoprosthetic reconstructions associated with (1) higher risk of deep infection; (2) increased risk of reoperation and decreased implant survivorship; or (3) poorer ambulatory status? Methods This is a single-institution retrospective case series of nononcologic femoral endoprosthetic reconstructions for revision TKA from 1995 to 2013 (n = 32). Cases were categorized as distal (n = 17) or diaphyseal (n = 15) femoral reconstructions based on extension to or above the supracondylar metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction, respectively. Five patients from each group were lost to followup before 2 years (distal mean 4 years [range, 2-8 years]; diaphyseal mean = 6 years [range, 2-16 years]), and one of the 12 distal reconstructions and two of the 10 diaphyseal reconstructions had not been evaluated within the past 5 years. Clinical outcomes and ambulatory status (able to walk or not) were assessed through chart review by authors not involved in any cases. Prior incidence of periprosthetic joint infection was high in both groups (distal = seven of 12 versus diaphyseal = four of 10; p = 0.670). Results Patients with diaphyseal femoral replacements were more likely to develop postoperative deep infections than patients with distal femoral replacements (distal = three of 12 versus diaphyseal = nine of 10; p = 0.004). Implant survivorship (revision-free) for diaphyseal reconstructions was worse at 2 years (distal = 100%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 100%-100% versus diaphyseal = 40%, 95% CI, 19%-86%; p = 0.001) and 5 years (distal = 90%, 95% CI, 75%-100% versus diaphyseal = 30%, 95% CI, 12%-73%; p = 0.001). Infection-free, revision-free survival (retention AND no infection) was worse for diaphyseal femoral replacing reconstructions than for distal femoral replacements at 2 years (distal = 70%, 95% CI, 48%-100% versus diaphyseal = 20%, 95% CI, 6%-69%; p = 0.037) and 5 years (distal = 70%, 95% CI, 48%-100% versus diaphyseal = 10%, 95% CI, 2%-

show abstract

Management of Distal Femoral Periprosthetic Fractures: Plate, Intramedullary Nail or Arthroplasty?

Matthews

Sinha

Liddle

2021

Controversies in Orthopaedic Surgery of the Lower Limb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A systematic review of endoprosthetic replacement for non-tumour indications around the knee joint

Cited by 36 publications

References 43 publications

Modular Endoprostheses for Nonneoplastic Conditions: Midterm Complications and Survival

Modular Endoprostheses for Nonneoplastic Conditions: Midterm Complications and Survival

Length of Endoprosthetic Reconstruction in Revision Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Complications and Reoperations

Management of Distal Femoral Periprosthetic Fractures: Plate, Intramedullary Nail or Arthroplasty?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About