Revision Arthroplasty Using a MUTARS® Prosthesis in Comminuted Periprosthetic Fracture of the Distal Femur

Choi, Hyung Suk; Nho, Jae‐Hwi; Kim, Chung Hyun; Kwon, Sai Won; Park, Jong‐Seok; Suh, You-Sung

doi:10.3349/ymj.2016.57.6.1517

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…AO classification system [8] was used by 3 studies [4,9] and mostly identified type C fractures, even though also fractures A and B were collected. Rorabeck classification [10] for classification of periprosthetic fractures were used in 2 studies [10,11] use, while only one [12] used the Backstein classification [13]. Seven studies [13][14][15][16][17][18] did not remind to any specific classification: fractures were only defined as "supracondylar".…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pain evaluation was considered in only 5 studies [9,11,13,14,16]: patients referred a better pain control, but none of the authors used a specific pain scale. In order to quantify ROM and knee function improvement, different scales have been used: 8 studies [9,15,16,18,19] reported the American Knee Society Score [20], 2 studies the HSS Knee Rating Scale [8][9][10][11]13,14,16,18]. In addition, Bristol [13] and Oxford Knee Score [22] were used each in one study [4,15], while no knee functional scores were reported in one study [17].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of knee mega-prosthesis for the management of distal femoral fractures: A systematic review

Meluzio

Oliva

Minutillo

et al. 2020

Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of knee mega-prosthesis for the management of distal femoral fractures: A systematic review

Meluzio

Oliva

Minutillo

et al. 2020

Injury

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Periprosthetic infection and periprosthetic fracture are common complications after reconstruction of the distal femur or diaphysis ( Grimer et al, 2002 ; Gosheger et al, 2006 ; Choi et al, 2016 ; Bus et al, 2017 ). At the last follow-up, in our study, we observed no periprosthetic infection or periprosthetic fracture.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hip-Preserved Reconstruction Using a Customized Cementless Intercalary Endoprosthesis With an Intra-Neck Curved Stem in Patients With an Ultrashort Proximal Femur: Midterm Follow-Up Outcomes

You

et al. 2022

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Hemiarthroplasty is widely used for proximal femoral reconstruction after tumor resection. However, complications of hemiarthroplasty include infection, hip dislocation, and acetabular wear. This study aimed to: (1) evaluate the reliability and validity of a customized cementless intercalary endoprosthesis (CCIE) with an intra-neck curved stem (INCS) to reconstruct femoral diaphyseal defects with an ultrashort proximal femur (UPF); (2) assess the lower extremity function after reconstruction with this endoprosthesis; and (3) identify the postoperative complications associated with the use of this endoprosthesis.Methods: Between October 2015 and May 2019, 13 patients underwent reconstruction with a CCIE with an INCS. The distance from the center of the femoral head to the midline of the body and the apex of the acetabulum was measured preoperatively. Additionally, the distance from the tip of the INCS to the midline of the body and the apex of the acetabulum was measured postoperatively. The femoral neck–shaft angle was also measured pre- and postoperatively. After an average follow-up duration of 46 months, the radiological outcomes of the CCIE with an INCS were analyzed. Function was evaluated with the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score. Pain was measured using a paper visual analog scale (VAS) pre- and postoperatively, and complications were recorded.Results: Compared with our preoperative design, we found no significant difference in the postoperative distance from the tip of the INCS to the body midline (p = 0.187) and the apex of the acetabulum (p = 0.159), or in the postoperative femoral neck–shaft angle (p = 0.793). Thus, the INCS positions were deemed accurate. The average MSTS score was 26 (range: 24–28), and the VAS score was significantly decreased postoperatively compared with preoperatively (p < 0.0001). No patients developed aseptic loosening, infection, periprosthetic fracture, or prosthetic fracture as of the last follow-up.Conclusion: The CCIE with an INCS was a valid and reliable method for reconstructing femoral diaphyseal defects with a UPF following malignant tumor resection. Postoperative lower extremity function was acceptable, with an appropriate individualized rehabilitation program, and the incidence of complications was low.

show abstract

“…Owing to these factors, MSTS scores did not differ between groups. Distal femur or diaphysis reconstruction is often associated with postoperative periprosthetic fracture and periprosthetic infection ( 31 , 43 , 44 ). However, no patients in the included study have experienced either of these outcomes as of the most recent follow-up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of cemented and cementless intra-neck curved stem use during hip-preserving reconstruction following massive femoral malignant tumor removal

You

Lu²,

Li³

et al. 2022

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPatients who undergo massive femoral malignant tumor (MFMT) resection often exhibit shortened femoral metaphyseal juxta-articular segments. The use of a customized femoral endoprosthesis (CFE) with an intra-neck curved stem (INCS) has emerged as a viable reconstructive surgical strategy for these individuals. Relative to a cemented INCS, it remains unclear as to whether cementless INCS use is associated with improvements in functionality or reconstructive longevity. As such, the present study was conducted to compare functional outcomes, endoprosthetic survival, and endoprosthesis-related complication rates in patients undergoing cemented and cementless INCS implantation.MethodsA total of 24 patients undergoing lower limb salvage and reconstructive surgical procedures utilizing cemented or cementless INCS endoprostheses were retrospectively included. Patient-functional outcomes, endoprosthetic survival, and complication rates were compared as a function of age; diagnosis; the length of femoral resection; residual proximal femur length; Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores; visual analog scale (VAS) scores; and the rates of implant breakage, periprosthetic infections, periprosthetic fractures, and aseptic loosening.ResultsThe mean follow-up was 56 months. Significant differences in the length of femoral resection (p<0.001) and residual proximal femur length were observed (p<0.001) between the cemented and cementless INCS groups. There were no differences in overall patient survival and aseptic loosening-associated endoprosthesis survival in the cemented and cementless groups. None of the included patients experienced periprosthetic fractures, infections, or implant breakage. Average respective MSTS and VAS scores did not differ between groups.ConclusionFor patients undergoing treatment for MFMTs, the use of a CFE with an INCS has emerged as a viable approach to hip-preserving reconstructive surgery. With appropriately designed individualized rehabilitative programs, good functional outcomes can be achieved for these endoprostheses, which are associated with low complication rates. Moreover, the selection between cemented or cementless INCS in the clinic should be made based on patient-specific factors, with cementless INCS implementation being preferable in younger patients with good-quality bone, the potential for long-term survival, and the osteotomy site near the lesser trochanter, whereas cemented INCS use should be favored for individuals who are older, have a shorter life expectancy, or have poor bone quality.

show abstract

Revision Arthroplasty Using a MUTARS® Prosthesis in Comminuted Periprosthetic Fracture of the Distal Femur

Cited by 8 publications

References 18 publications

The use of knee mega-prosthesis for the management of distal femoral fractures: A systematic review

The use of knee mega-prosthesis for the management of distal femoral fractures: A systematic review

Hip-Preserved Reconstruction Using a Customized Cementless Intercalary Endoprosthesis With an Intra-Neck Curved Stem in Patients With an Ultrashort Proximal Femur: Midterm Follow-Up Outcomes

A comparison of cemented and cementless intra-neck curved stem use during hip-preserving reconstruction following massive femoral malignant tumor removal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About