Cargando…

Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome, complications and survival of the three most commonly used surgical reconstructions of the proximal humerus after transarticular tumour resection. Between 1985 and 2005, 38 consecutive proximal humeral reconstructions using allograft-prosthesis c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van de Sande, Michiel A. J., Dijkstra, P. D. Sander, Taminiau, Antonie H. M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167452/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21085956
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1152-z
_version_ 1782211255478517760
author van de Sande, Michiel A. J.
Dijkstra, P. D. Sander
Taminiau, Antonie H. M.
author_facet van de Sande, Michiel A. J.
Dijkstra, P. D. Sander
Taminiau, Antonie H. M.
author_sort van de Sande, Michiel A. J.
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome, complications and survival of the three most commonly used surgical reconstructions of the proximal humerus after transarticular tumour resection. Between 1985 and 2005, 38 consecutive proximal humeral reconstructions using allograft-prosthesis composite (n = 10), osteoarticular allograft (n = 13) or a modular tumour prosthesis (n = 14) were performed in our clinic. The mean follow-up was ten years (1–25). Of these, 27 were disease free at latest follow-up (mean 16.8 years) and ten had died of disease. The endoprosthetic group presented the smallest complication rate of 21% (n = 1), compared to 40% (n = 4) in the allograft-prosthesis composite and 62% (n = 8) in the osteoarticular allograft group. Only one revision was performed in the endoprosthetic group, in a case of shoulder instability. Infection after revision (n = 3), pseudoarthrosis (n = 2), fracture of the allograft (n = 3) and shoulder instability (n = 4) were the major complications of allograft use in general. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significantly better implant survival for the endoprosthetic group (log-rank p = 0.002). At final follow-up the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society scores were an average of 72% for the allograft-prosthetic composite (n = 7, median follow-up 17 years), 76% for the osteoarticular allograft (n = 3, 19 years) and 77% for the endoprosthetic reconstruction (n = 10, 5 years) groups. An endoprosthetic reconstruction after transarticular proximal humeral resection resulted in the lowest complication rate, highest implant survival and comparable functional results when compared to allograft-prosthesis composite and osteoarticular allograft use. We believe that the surgical approach that best preserves the abductor mechanism and provides sufficient surgical exposure for tumour resection contributed to better functional results and glenohumeral stability in the endoprosthetic group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3167452
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31674522011-10-05 Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction van de Sande, Michiel A. J. Dijkstra, P. D. Sander Taminiau, Antonie H. M. Int Orthop Original Paper The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome, complications and survival of the three most commonly used surgical reconstructions of the proximal humerus after transarticular tumour resection. Between 1985 and 2005, 38 consecutive proximal humeral reconstructions using allograft-prosthesis composite (n = 10), osteoarticular allograft (n = 13) or a modular tumour prosthesis (n = 14) were performed in our clinic. The mean follow-up was ten years (1–25). Of these, 27 were disease free at latest follow-up (mean 16.8 years) and ten had died of disease. The endoprosthetic group presented the smallest complication rate of 21% (n = 1), compared to 40% (n = 4) in the allograft-prosthesis composite and 62% (n = 8) in the osteoarticular allograft group. Only one revision was performed in the endoprosthetic group, in a case of shoulder instability. Infection after revision (n = 3), pseudoarthrosis (n = 2), fracture of the allograft (n = 3) and shoulder instability (n = 4) were the major complications of allograft use in general. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significantly better implant survival for the endoprosthetic group (log-rank p = 0.002). At final follow-up the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society scores were an average of 72% for the allograft-prosthetic composite (n = 7, median follow-up 17 years), 76% for the osteoarticular allograft (n = 3, 19 years) and 77% for the endoprosthetic reconstruction (n = 10, 5 years) groups. An endoprosthetic reconstruction after transarticular proximal humeral resection resulted in the lowest complication rate, highest implant survival and comparable functional results when compared to allograft-prosthesis composite and osteoarticular allograft use. We believe that the surgical approach that best preserves the abductor mechanism and provides sufficient surgical exposure for tumour resection contributed to better functional results and glenohumeral stability in the endoprosthetic group. Springer-Verlag 2010-11-18 2011-09 /pmc/articles/PMC3167452/ /pubmed/21085956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1152-z Text en © The Author(s) 2010 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
van de Sande, Michiel A. J.
Dijkstra, P. D. Sander
Taminiau, Antonie H. M.
Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction
title Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction
title_full Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction
title_fullStr Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction
title_full_unstemmed Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction
title_short Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction
title_sort proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167452/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21085956
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1152-z
work_keys_str_mv AT vandesandemichielaj proximalhumerusreconstructionaftertumourresectionbiologicalversusendoprostheticreconstruction
AT dijkstrapdsander proximalhumerusreconstructionaftertumourresectionbiologicalversusendoprostheticreconstruction
AT taminiauantoniehm proximalhumerusreconstructionaftertumourresectionbiologicalversusendoprostheticreconstruction