Review of Endoprosthetic Reconstruction in Limb-sparing Surgery
Endoprosthetic replacement of segmental skeletal defects is the preferred technique of reconstruction after resection of bone sarcomas. Today, all of the major anatomic joints with their adjacent segmental bone can be reconstructed safely and reliably with a modular endoprosthetic replacement. Prosthetic reconstruction is routinely performed for the proximal femur, distal femur, total femur, proximal tibia, proximal humerus, and scapula. Allografts are rarely used.
A major advantage of a modular endoprosthetic system is intraoperative flexibility; it enables the surgeon to reconstruct defects of any size with minimal preoperative planning. Instead of performing a resection to match a prosthesis customized on the basis of imaging studies that are 4–8 weeks old, the surgeon can concentrate on performing the best possible resection indicated for the patient at the time of surgery. Overall survival analysis of large segmental replacements is approximately 90% at 10 years (reported at 98% for the proximal humerus and 90% for the distal femur).
This chapter reviews the indications and techniques for performing endoprosthetic replacements for bone tumors. Many of the described surgical techniques were developed by the senior author, placing emphasis on techniques for reconstructing the soft tissues after implantation of a modular endoprosthesis to optimize the functional outcome.
KeywordsDistal Femur Limb Salvage Proximal Humerus Endoprosthetic Replacement Endoprosthetic Reconstruction
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Enneking WF. Clinical Musculoskeletal Pathology. Gainesville: University Press of Florida; 1977.Google Scholar
- 3.Hejna MJ, Gitelis S. Allograft prosthetic composite reconstruction for bone tumors. Sem Surg Oncol. 1997;13: 18–24.Google Scholar
- 5.Capanna R, Morris HG, Campanacci D et al. Modular uncemented prosthetic reconstruction after resection of tumours of the distal femur. J Bone Joint Surg. 1994;76B: 178–86.Google Scholar
- 7.Ward WG, Johnson KS, Dorey FJ, Eckardt JJ. Extra-medullary porous coating to prevent diaphyseal osteolysis and radiolucent lines around proximal tibial replacements. J Bone Joint Surg. 1993;75A:976–87.Google Scholar
- 8.An K, Chao EYS, Kaufman KR. Analysis of muscle and joint loads. In: Mow VC, Hayes WC, editors. Basic Orthopaedic Biomechanics, 2nd edn. New York: Lippincott Raven; 1997.Google Scholar
- 9.Andriacchi TP, Natarajan RN, Hurwitz DE. Musculoskeletal dynamics, locomotion and clinical applications. In: Mow VC, Hayes WC, editors. Basic Orthopaedic Biomechanics, 2nd edn. New York: Lippincott Raven; 1997.Google Scholar
- 10.Henshaw RM, Malawer MM. Survival of modular versus custom endoprostheses for limb salvage: are we actually doing better? Presented at American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 1998 Annual Meeting — Scientific Program; Paper No. 157, 20 March 1998.Google Scholar
- 11.Malawer MM, Canfield D, Meller I. Porous-coated segmental prosthesis for large tumor defects. A prosthesis based upon immediate fixation (PMMA) and extracortical bone fixation. In: Yamamuro T, editor. New Developments for Limb Salvage in Musculoskeletal Tumors. New York: Springer; 1989:247–55.Google Scholar
- 12.Malawer MM. Tumors of the shoulder girdle. Technique of resection and description of a surgical classification. Orthop Clin N Am. 1991; 22:7–35.Google Scholar
- 15.Roberts P, Chan D, Gimer RJ, Sneath RS, Scales JT. Prosthetic replacement of the distal femur for primary bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg. 1991;73B:762.Google Scholar
- 17.Malawer MM, Chou LB. Prosthetic survival and clinical results with use of large-segment replacements in the treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas. J Bone Joint Surg. 1995;77A:1154–65.Google Scholar
- 18.Capanna R, Morris HG, Campanacci D et al. Modular uncemented prosthetic reconstruction after resection of tumours of the distal femur. J Bone Joint Surg. 1994;76B: 178–86.Google Scholar
- Henshaw RM, Jones V, Malawer MM. Endoprosthetic reconstruction with the modular replacement system. Survival analysis of the first 100 implants with a minimum 2 year follow-up. Proceedings, Fourth Annual Combined Meeting of the American and European Musculoskeletal Tumor Societies, Washington, DC; 1998:90.Google Scholar