Cargando…

Short-stem reconstruction for megaendoprostheses in case of an ultrashort proximal femur

BACKGROUND: Tumors of the distal femur and diaphysis with proximal metaphyseal extension into the femur present a challenge for limb salvage. The conventional treatment consists of limb salvage with total femur replacement. This case study aims to present preliminary results and experience with shor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dieckmann, Ralf, Henrichs, Marcel-Philipp, Gosheger, Georg, Höll, Steffen, Hardes, Jendrik, Streitbürger, Arne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-190
_version_ 1782322255927181312
author Dieckmann, Ralf
Henrichs, Marcel-Philipp
Gosheger, Georg
Höll, Steffen
Hardes, Jendrik
Streitbürger, Arne
author_facet Dieckmann, Ralf
Henrichs, Marcel-Philipp
Gosheger, Georg
Höll, Steffen
Hardes, Jendrik
Streitbürger, Arne
author_sort Dieckmann, Ralf
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Tumors of the distal femur and diaphysis with proximal metaphyseal extension into the femur present a challenge for limb salvage. The conventional treatment consists of limb salvage with total femur replacement. This case study aims to present preliminary results and experience with short-stem reconstruction, focusing on the mechanical stability of the procedure. METHODS: Sixteen short stems were implanted in 15 patients. The patients’ mean age was 33,3 years (range 11–73). In 10 patients, the stem was used for distal femur reconstruction, in one patient for diaphyseal reconstruction, and in four for a stump lengthening procedure. All of the patients had a primary sarcoma in their history. The mean follow-up period was 37 months (range 5–95 months). The clinical and functional follow-up data were analyzed. RESULTS: Ten patients (67%) were still alive at the time of evaluation. Three complications associated with the stem were noted. In one case, there was aseptic loosening after 58 months; in another, aseptic loosening occurred because the diameter of the stem had initially been too small; and in one case, there was breakage of the fixation screw, without any clinical symptoms. The average Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score for all patients was 23 (range 9–28). The mean result for the distal femur replacement was 24 (range 22–28). None of the surviving patients with distal femur replacements needed any crutches or had a Trendelenburg limp. Both living patients who underwent a stump lengthening procedure were able to walk with an exoprosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: The short stem is a good solution that can prevent or delay proximal femur resection in patients with tumors extending into the proximal metaphyseal femur. Additional risks of proximal femur resection, such as dislocation, opening of another oncological compartment, Trendelenburg limp, and chondrolysis can be avoided.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4067112
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40671122014-06-24 Short-stem reconstruction for megaendoprostheses in case of an ultrashort proximal femur Dieckmann, Ralf Henrichs, Marcel-Philipp Gosheger, Georg Höll, Steffen Hardes, Jendrik Streitbürger, Arne BMC Musculoskelet Disord Technical Advance BACKGROUND: Tumors of the distal femur and diaphysis with proximal metaphyseal extension into the femur present a challenge for limb salvage. The conventional treatment consists of limb salvage with total femur replacement. This case study aims to present preliminary results and experience with short-stem reconstruction, focusing on the mechanical stability of the procedure. METHODS: Sixteen short stems were implanted in 15 patients. The patients’ mean age was 33,3 years (range 11–73). In 10 patients, the stem was used for distal femur reconstruction, in one patient for diaphyseal reconstruction, and in four for a stump lengthening procedure. All of the patients had a primary sarcoma in their history. The mean follow-up period was 37 months (range 5–95 months). The clinical and functional follow-up data were analyzed. RESULTS: Ten patients (67%) were still alive at the time of evaluation. Three complications associated with the stem were noted. In one case, there was aseptic loosening after 58 months; in another, aseptic loosening occurred because the diameter of the stem had initially been too small; and in one case, there was breakage of the fixation screw, without any clinical symptoms. The average Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score for all patients was 23 (range 9–28). The mean result for the distal femur replacement was 24 (range 22–28). None of the surviving patients with distal femur replacements needed any crutches or had a Trendelenburg limp. Both living patients who underwent a stump lengthening procedure were able to walk with an exoprosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: The short stem is a good solution that can prevent or delay proximal femur resection in patients with tumors extending into the proximal metaphyseal femur. Additional risks of proximal femur resection, such as dislocation, opening of another oncological compartment, Trendelenburg limp, and chondrolysis can be avoided. BioMed Central 2014-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC4067112/ /pubmed/24885859 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-190 Text en Copyright © 2014 Dieckmann et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Technical Advance
Dieckmann, Ralf
Henrichs, Marcel-Philipp
Gosheger, Georg
Höll, Steffen
Hardes, Jendrik
Streitbürger, Arne
Short-stem reconstruction for megaendoprostheses in case of an ultrashort proximal femur
title Short-stem reconstruction for megaendoprostheses in case of an ultrashort proximal femur
title_full Short-stem reconstruction for megaendoprostheses in case of an ultrashort proximal femur
title_fullStr Short-stem reconstruction for megaendoprostheses in case of an ultrashort proximal femur
title_full_unstemmed Short-stem reconstruction for megaendoprostheses in case of an ultrashort proximal femur
title_short Short-stem reconstruction for megaendoprostheses in case of an ultrashort proximal femur
title_sort short-stem reconstruction for megaendoprostheses in case of an ultrashort proximal femur
topic Technical Advance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-190
work_keys_str_mv AT dieckmannralf shortstemreconstructionformegaendoprosthesesincaseofanultrashortproximalfemur
AT henrichsmarcelphilipp shortstemreconstructionformegaendoprosthesesincaseofanultrashortproximalfemur
AT goshegergeorg shortstemreconstructionformegaendoprosthesesincaseofanultrashortproximalfemur
AT hollsteffen shortstemreconstructionformegaendoprosthesesincaseofanultrashortproximalfemur
AT hardesjendrik shortstemreconstructionformegaendoprosthesesincaseofanultrashortproximalfemur
AT streitburgerarne shortstemreconstructionformegaendoprosthesesincaseofanultrashortproximalfemur