Cargando…

A comparative study of reconstruction modalities after knee joint-preserving tumor resection: reconstruction with a custom-made endoprosthesis versus reconstruction with a liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the feasibility, complications, graft survival rate, and clinical outcomes of joint-preserving resection using a custom-made endoprosthesis and liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft reconstruction in patients with malignant bone tumors around the knee joi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Yuan, Xu, Hairong, Shan, Huachao, Ma, Ke, Liu, Weifeng, Niu, Xiaohui
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10685649/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38031112
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04402-3
_version_ 1785151681272479744
author Li, Yuan
Xu, Hairong
Shan, Huachao
Ma, Ke
Liu, Weifeng
Niu, Xiaohui
author_facet Li, Yuan
Xu, Hairong
Shan, Huachao
Ma, Ke
Liu, Weifeng
Niu, Xiaohui
author_sort Li, Yuan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the feasibility, complications, graft survival rate, and clinical outcomes of joint-preserving resection using a custom-made endoprosthesis and liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft reconstruction in patients with malignant bone tumors around the knee joint. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 23 consecutive patients who underwent joint preservation surgery between 2008 and 2018 at our center. The study cohort included 13 patients who underwent custom-made endoprosthesis reconstruction and 10 who underwent liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft reconstruction. The resected bone length, distance between the resection line and the joint, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, complications, and MSTS were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 68.5 months in the endoprosthesis group and 65.3 months in the inactivated autograft group. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, resected bone length, distance between the resection line and the joint, or intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. The operative time was longer in the inactivated bone graft group than in the endoprosthesis group (p < 0.001). The endoprosthesis group had more complications (six patients) and reoperations due to complications (five) than the inactivated autograft group (one), but there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p = 0.158). The inactivated autograft group had one patient with type 1b complications, while the endoprosthesis group had one with type 1b complications, one with type 2b complications, and one with type 4a complications. One patient in the endoprosthesis group with type 5a complications experienced two soft tissue recurrences. The overall 5-year survival rate was 86.5% and the graft survival and final limb salvage rates were 100% in both groups. After the follow-up period, the mean MSTS scores were 91% ± 7% in the endoprosthesis group and 94% ± 6% in the inactivated autograft group, with no significant difference (p = 0.280). CONCLUSION: Joint-preserving resection is a reliable and effective tumor resection method that can achieve good postoperative function. There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications, overall survival rate, or graft survival rate between the two groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10685649
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106856492023-11-30 A comparative study of reconstruction modalities after knee joint-preserving tumor resection: reconstruction with a custom-made endoprosthesis versus reconstruction with a liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft Li, Yuan Xu, Hairong Shan, Huachao Ma, Ke Liu, Weifeng Niu, Xiaohui J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the feasibility, complications, graft survival rate, and clinical outcomes of joint-preserving resection using a custom-made endoprosthesis and liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft reconstruction in patients with malignant bone tumors around the knee joint. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 23 consecutive patients who underwent joint preservation surgery between 2008 and 2018 at our center. The study cohort included 13 patients who underwent custom-made endoprosthesis reconstruction and 10 who underwent liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft reconstruction. The resected bone length, distance between the resection line and the joint, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, complications, and MSTS were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 68.5 months in the endoprosthesis group and 65.3 months in the inactivated autograft group. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, resected bone length, distance between the resection line and the joint, or intraoperative blood loss between the two groups. The operative time was longer in the inactivated bone graft group than in the endoprosthesis group (p < 0.001). The endoprosthesis group had more complications (six patients) and reoperations due to complications (five) than the inactivated autograft group (one), but there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (p = 0.158). The inactivated autograft group had one patient with type 1b complications, while the endoprosthesis group had one with type 1b complications, one with type 2b complications, and one with type 4a complications. One patient in the endoprosthesis group with type 5a complications experienced two soft tissue recurrences. The overall 5-year survival rate was 86.5% and the graft survival and final limb salvage rates were 100% in both groups. After the follow-up period, the mean MSTS scores were 91% ± 7% in the endoprosthesis group and 94% ± 6% in the inactivated autograft group, with no significant difference (p = 0.280). CONCLUSION: Joint-preserving resection is a reliable and effective tumor resection method that can achieve good postoperative function. There were no significant differences in the incidence of complications, overall survival rate, or graft survival rate between the two groups. BioMed Central 2023-11-29 /pmc/articles/PMC10685649/ /pubmed/38031112 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04402-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Li, Yuan
Xu, Hairong
Shan, Huachao
Ma, Ke
Liu, Weifeng
Niu, Xiaohui
A comparative study of reconstruction modalities after knee joint-preserving tumor resection: reconstruction with a custom-made endoprosthesis versus reconstruction with a liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft
title A comparative study of reconstruction modalities after knee joint-preserving tumor resection: reconstruction with a custom-made endoprosthesis versus reconstruction with a liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft
title_full A comparative study of reconstruction modalities after knee joint-preserving tumor resection: reconstruction with a custom-made endoprosthesis versus reconstruction with a liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft
title_fullStr A comparative study of reconstruction modalities after knee joint-preserving tumor resection: reconstruction with a custom-made endoprosthesis versus reconstruction with a liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft
title_full_unstemmed A comparative study of reconstruction modalities after knee joint-preserving tumor resection: reconstruction with a custom-made endoprosthesis versus reconstruction with a liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft
title_short A comparative study of reconstruction modalities after knee joint-preserving tumor resection: reconstruction with a custom-made endoprosthesis versus reconstruction with a liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft
title_sort comparative study of reconstruction modalities after knee joint-preserving tumor resection: reconstruction with a custom-made endoprosthesis versus reconstruction with a liquid nitrogen-inactivated autologous bone graft
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10685649/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38031112
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-04402-3
work_keys_str_mv AT liyuan acomparativestudyofreconstructionmodalitiesafterkneejointpreservingtumorresectionreconstructionwithacustommadeendoprosthesisversusreconstructionwithaliquidnitrogeninactivatedautologousbonegraft
AT xuhairong acomparativestudyofreconstructionmodalitiesafterkneejointpreservingtumorresectionreconstructionwithacustommadeendoprosthesisversusreconstructionwithaliquidnitrogeninactivatedautologousbonegraft
AT shanhuachao acomparativestudyofreconstructionmodalitiesafterkneejointpreservingtumorresectionreconstructionwithacustommadeendoprosthesisversusreconstructionwithaliquidnitrogeninactivatedautologousbonegraft
AT make acomparativestudyofreconstructionmodalitiesafterkneejointpreservingtumorresectionreconstructionwithacustommadeendoprosthesisversusreconstructionwithaliquidnitrogeninactivatedautologousbonegraft
AT liuweifeng acomparativestudyofreconstructionmodalitiesafterkneejointpreservingtumorresectionreconstructionwithacustommadeendoprosthesisversusreconstructionwithaliquidnitrogeninactivatedautologousbonegraft
AT niuxiaohui acomparativestudyofreconstructionmodalitiesafterkneejointpreservingtumorresectionreconstructionwithacustommadeendoprosthesisversusreconstructionwithaliquidnitrogeninactivatedautologousbonegraft
AT liyuan comparativestudyofreconstructionmodalitiesafterkneejointpreservingtumorresectionreconstructionwithacustommadeendoprosthesisversusreconstructionwithaliquidnitrogeninactivatedautologousbonegraft
AT xuhairong comparativestudyofreconstructionmodalitiesafterkneejointpreservingtumorresectionreconstructionwithacustommadeendoprosthesisversusreconstructionwithaliquidnitrogeninactivatedautologousbonegraft
AT shanhuachao comparativestudyofreconstructionmodalitiesafterkneejointpreservingtumorresectionreconstructionwithacustommadeendoprosthesisversusreconstructionwithaliquidnitrogeninactivatedautologousbonegraft
AT make comparativestudyofreconstructionmodalitiesafterkneejointpreservingtumorresectionreconstructionwithacustommadeendoprosthesisversusreconstructionwithaliquidnitrogeninactivatedautologousbonegraft
AT liuweifeng comparativestudyofreconstructionmodalitiesafterkneejointpreservingtumorresectionreconstructionwithacustommadeendoprosthesisversusreconstructionwithaliquidnitrogeninactivatedautologousbonegraft
AT niuxiaohui comparativestudyofreconstructionmodalitiesafterkneejointpreservingtumorresectionreconstructionwithacustommadeendoprosthesisversusreconstructionwithaliquidnitrogeninactivatedautologousbonegraft