Distal Tibial Reconstruction in the Management of Primary Bone Tumors in Children and Adolescents

Abstract

Background: Distal tibial primary bone tumors are rare, and options for limb salvage surgery are limited and challenging. Importantly, local control has shown to be crucial and necessary for cure, and radical surgery is one of the most important components of therapy for some bone sarcomas. We investigated the feasibility and functional and oncological outcomes of distal tibial reconstruction using endoprosthesis in children with malignant bone tumors. Methods: Fourteen patients (median age 13.6 years) with primary bone tumors (4 Ewing sarcoma [ES], 10 osteosarcoma) of the distal tibiae were treated during 2013-2019. All patients had reconstruction using a modular (13 patients) or expandable custom-made titanium bone replacement system (1 patient). All patients received chemotherapy before and after surgery. Results: Twelve patients (85.7%) are alive with a median follow-up 20 months from diagnosis. Five-year estimates of event-free survival and overall survival were 60.6% and 76.4%, respectively. Three patients had postoperative complications requiring second surgery. Maximum dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of the foot were 20 degrees (range 0-20 degrees) and 20 degrees (range 5-20 degrees), respectively. Conclusion: For select distal tibial sarcomas, after neoadjuvant chemotherapy pretreatment and radical resection, reconstruction using an endoprosthesis as a radical surgery provides an option was associated with a low rate of short-term local complications and relatively good early function. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Endoprosthetic Reconstruction in Ewing’s Sarcoma Patients: A Systematic Review of Postoperative Complications and Functional Outcomes

“…Other prostheses included were Repiphysis, MUTARS, Kotz, LUMiC, RESTOR, Lewis, HMRS and Non Hinged CCK megaprosthesis ( Table 2 ). Six studies used non-expanding prostheses [ 17 , 18 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 29 ], while the remaining eleven studies involved expanding prostheses [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 30 ]. Some studies used an expanding Stanmore prosthesis; however, three studies used custom made non-expanding Stanmore implants [ 17 , 18 , 22 ].…”