Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implant and limb survival after resection of primary bone tumors of the lower extremities and reconstruction with mega-prostheses fifty patients followed for a mean of forteen years

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Previous studies reported variable outcome and failure rates after mega-prosthetic reconstructions in the lower extremities. The purpose of this study was to make a long-term single-center evaluation of patients treated with limb-sparing surgery and reconstruction with mega-prostheses in the lower extremities.

Methods

We identified 50 patients (osteosarcoma (n = 30), chondrosarcoma (n = 9), osteoclastoma (n = 6), Ewing sarcoma (n = 4), angiosarcoma (n = 1)), who underwent limb-sparing reconstruction of the lower extremities (proximal femur (n = 9), distal femur (n = 29), proximal tibia (n = 9), and the entire femur (n = 3)) between 1985 and 2005. Surviving patients not lost to follow-up were evaluated using the MSTS score. Causes of failure were classified according to the Henderson classification. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used for evaluation of patient, prosthesis, and limb survival.

Results

Twenty-eight patients were alive at follow-up. Fifty-four percent had revision surgery (n = 27). The ten year patient survival was 60% (95%CI 46–74%); the ten year implant survival was 24% (95%CI 9–41%), and the ten year limb survival rate was 83% (95%CI 65–96%). Type 1 failure occurred in 9%, type 2 in 16%, type 3 in 28%, type 4 in 18%, and type 5 in 3%. Mean MSTS score was 21 (range, 6–30), representing a median score of 71%.

Conclusions

Our long-term results with mega-prostheses justify the use of limb-salvage surgery and prosthetic reconstruction. Our results are fully comparable with other findings, with regard to limb and prosthesis survival, but also with regard to functional outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rougraff BT, Simon MA, Kneisl JS, Greenberg DB, Mankin HJ (1994) Limb salvage compared with amputation for osteosarcoma of the distal end of the femur. A long-term oncological, functional, and quality-of-life study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76(5):649–656

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Saeter G, Alvegard TA, Elomaa I et al (1991) Treatment of osteosarcoma of the extremities with the T-10 protocol, with emphasis on the effects of preoperative chemotherapy with single-agent high-dose methotrexate: a Scandinavian Sarcoma Group study. J Clin Oncol 9:1766–1775

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rydholm A, Gustafson P, Rooser B et al (1991) Limb-sparing surgery without radiotherapy based on anatomic location of soft tissue sarcoma. J Clin Oncol 9:1757–1765

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Smeland S, Müller C, Alvegard TA et al Scandinavian Sarcoma Group Osteosarcoma Study SSG VIII: prognostic factors for outcome and the role of replacement salvage chemotherapy for poor histological responders. Eur J Cancer 39:488–494

  5. Ferrari S, Smeland S, Mercuri M et al (2005) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with high-dose ifosfamide, high-dose methotrexate, cisplatin, and doxorubicin for patients with localized osteosarcoma of the extremity: a joint study by the Italian and Scandinavian Sarcoma Groups. J Clin Oncol 23:8845–8852. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.00.5785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Grimer RJ, Taminiau AM, Cannon SR (2002) Surgical subcommitte of the European osteosarcoma intergroup; Surgical outcomes in osteosarcoma. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84(3):395–400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Houdek MT, Wagner ER, Wilke BK et al (2016) Long term outcomes of cemented endoprosthetic reconstruction for periarticular tumors of the distal femur. Knee 23:167–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2015.08.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hardes J, Gebert C, Schwappach A et al (2006) Characteristics and outcome of infections associated with tumor endoprostheses. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126:289–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-005-0009-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Qadir I, Umer M, Baloch N (2012) Functional outcome of limb salvage surgery with mega-endoprosthetic reconstruction for bone tumors. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:1227–1232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1542-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schmidt M, Pedersen L, Sørensen HT (2014) The Danish Civil Registration System as a tool in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol 29:541–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wada T, Kawai a IK et al (2007) Construct validity of the Enneking score for measuring function in patients with malignant or aggressive benign tumours of the upper limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:659–663. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B5.18498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pala E, Henderson ER, Calabrò T et al (2013) Survival of current production tumor endoprostheses: complications, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis. J Surg Oncol 108:403–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23414

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Pala E et al (2011) Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:418–429. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Torbert JT, Fox EJ, Hosalkar HS et al (2005) Endoprosthetic reconstructions. Clin Orthop Relat Res NA:51–59. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000179735.37089.c2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Simon MA, Aschliman MA, Thomas N, Mankin HJ (1986) Limb-salvage treatment versus amputation for osteosarcoma of the distal end of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68:1331–1337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Carty CP, Dickinson IC, Watts MC et al (2009) Impairment and disability following limb salvage procedures for bone sarcoma. Knee 16:405–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2009.02.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mittermayer F, Krepler P, Dominkus M et al (2001) Long-term followup of uncemented tumor endoprostheses for the lower extremity. Clin Orthop Relat Res:167–177

  18. Kemp HBS, Sneath RS, Walker PS (1996) Custom-made prosthetic replacements for bone tumours of the lower limb. Bone Joint J 78–B:5–13

  19. Morgan HD, Cizik AM, Leopold SS et al (2006) Survival of tumor megaprostheses replacements about the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:39–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000229330.14029.0d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gosheger G, Gebert C, Ahrens H et al (2006) Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0276-1092(08)70278-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rubio D, Serrano M, Wang E (2013) Tumour endoprosthetic reconstruction for primary aggressive and malignant bone tumours of the distal femur. Malays Orthop J 7(3):1–5. https://doi.org/10.5704/MOJ.1311.007

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Zeegen EN, Aponte-Tinao LA, Hornicek FJ et al (2004) Survivorship analysis of 141 modular metallic endoprostheses at early followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 90025:239–250. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000126224.97525.5b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jeys LM, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM (2005) Periprosthetic infection in patients treated for an orthopaedic oncological condition. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:842–849. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.C.01222

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pala E, Trovarelli G, Calabrò T et al (2015) Survival of modern knee tumor megaprostheses: failures, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:891–899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3699-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mavrogenis AF, Pala E, Angelini A et al (2015) Infected prostheses after lower-extremity bone tumor resection: clinical outcomes of 100 patients. Surg Infect 16:267–275. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2014.085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Unwin PS, Cannon SR, Grimer RJ, Kemp HB, Sneath RS, Walker PS (1996) Aseptic loosening in cemented custom-made prosthetic replacements for bone tumours of the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(1):5–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Flint MN, Griffin AM, Bell RS et al (2006) Aseptic loosening is uncommon with uncemented proximal tibia tumor prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0276-1092(08)70276-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Capanna R, Scoccianti G, Frenos F et al (2014) What was the survival of megaprostheses in lower limb reconstructions after tumor resections? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473:820–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3736-1

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Schwartz AJ, Kabo JM, Eilber FC et al (2010) Cemented distal femoral endoprostheses for musculoskeletal tumor: improved survival of modular versus custom implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2198–2210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1197-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mittermayer F, Windhager R, Dominkus M et al (2002) Revision of the Kotz type of tumour endoprosthesis for the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:401–406

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jeys LM, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM (2003) Risk of amputation following limb salvage surgery with endoprosthetic replacement, in a consecutive series of 1261 patients. Int Orthop 27:160–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-003-0429-x

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Malawer MM, Chou LB (1995) Prosthetic survival and clinical results with use of large-segment replacements in the treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:1154–1165

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jeys LM, Kulkarni a GRJ et al (2008) Endoprosthetic reconstruction for the treatment of musculoskeletal tumors of the appendicular skeleton and pelvis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1265–1271. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.01324

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tunn PU, Pomraenke D, Goerling U, Hohenberger P (2008) Functional outcome after endoprosthetic limb-salvage therapy of primary bone tumours—a comparative analysis using the MSTS score, the TESS and the RNL index. Int Orthop 32:619–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0388-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Aksnes LH, Bauer HCF, Jebsen NL et al (2008) Limb-sparing surgery preserves more function than amputation: a Scandinavian sarcoma group study of 118 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:786–794. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.90B6.19805

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sharil AR, Usm MO, Nawaz AH et al (2013) Early functional outcome of resection and endoprosthesis replacement for primary tumor around. Knee 7:30–35

    Google Scholar 

  37. McGoveran BM, Davis AM, Gross AE, Bell RS (1999) Evaluation of the allograft-prosthesis composite technique for proximal femoral reconstruction after resection of a primary bone tumour. Can J Surg 42:37–45

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Davis AM, Devlin M, Griffin AM et al (1999) Functional outcome in amputation versus limb sparing of patients with lower extremity sarcoma: a matched case-control study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80:615–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90161-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank consultant pathologist Søren Daugaard.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Musculoskeletal Tumor Section, The Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Christina Enciso Holm, Christian Bardram, Anja Falk Riecke, Peter Horstmann & Michael Mørk Petersen

Authors
  1. Christina Enciso Holm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Bardram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anja Falk Riecke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Horstmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Mørk Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina Enciso Holm.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

The study has been approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (no. 2013-41-2591) and the Danish Health and Medicines Authority (no. 3-3013-894/1).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants alive included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Holm, C.E., Bardram, C., Riecke, A.F. et al. Implant and limb survival after resection of primary bone tumors of the lower extremities and reconstruction with mega-prostheses fifty patients followed for a mean of forteen years. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 42, 1175–1181 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3861-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3861-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation