Cargando…

Comparative Analysis of Early Follow‐up of Biologic Fixation and Cemented Stem Fixation for Femoral Tumor Prosthesis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy between biologic fixation and traditional cement stems for the fixation of distal femoral prostheses for reconstruction following tumor resection. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed of patients who received a first distal femoral tumor prosthe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Yuan, Sun, Yang, Shan, Hua‐chao, Niu, Xiao‐hui
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6595119/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31243921
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12483
_version_ 1783430347572117504
author Li, Yuan
Sun, Yang
Shan, Hua‐chao
Niu, Xiao‐hui
author_facet Li, Yuan
Sun, Yang
Shan, Hua‐chao
Niu, Xiao‐hui
author_sort Li, Yuan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy between biologic fixation and traditional cement stems for the fixation of distal femoral prostheses for reconstruction following tumor resection. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed of patients who received a first distal femoral tumor prosthesis, with a rotating hinge, in the Department of Orthopaedic Oncology of Beijing Jishuitan Hospital between October 2011 and January 2016. Two hundred and sixty eligible cases were enrolled, with a cemented fixation used in 199 of these cases and a biologic fixation in 61 cases. Survival rates and survival time of prostheses were analyzed, with prosthetic failure considered as the endpoint event for survival time of the prosthesis. Kaplan–Meier survival curve and the log‐rank test were used to compare survival rates between the two types of fixation methods, and factors that may affect the survival rate of prosthesis were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 260 cases forming our study group, 138 were males and 122 females, with 102 males and 97 females in the cemented fixation group (mean age, 25.8 years; range, 8–72 years) and 36 males and 25 females in the biologic fixation group (mean age, 25.5 years; range, 12–59 years). Osteosarcoma was the most common type of tumor (188 cases, 72.3%), of which 145 cases (72.9%) were in the cemented and 45 cases (72.1%) in the biologic fixation group. Among the 260 cases enrolled into the study group, 13 patients were lost to follow‐up. The average duration of follow‐up for the remaining 247 cases was 28.8 months (median, 28.8 months; range, 4–61 months). The 3‐year overall survival rate of prostheses was 87.2% for the biologic fixation group and 80.4% in the cemented fixation group (P = 0.389). The 3‐year mechanical survival rate (excluding cases of infection and oncologic progression) was 100% for the biologic fixation and 97.6% for the cemented fixation group (P = 0.468). Complications were identified in 21 cases: 3 cases (5%) in the biologic and 18 cases (9.6%) in the cemented fixation group (P = 0.264). Two revisions were required in the cemented fixation group, but no revision was required in the biologic fixation group. A total of 10 patients required amputation after prosthesis implantation. Of these, 7 cases (4 cement and 3 biologic) were due to tumor recurrence; 3 cases were due to infection, with all cases occurring in the cement fixation group. CONCLUSION: The current study provides a baseline reference for future mid‐term to long‐term follow‐up, laying the foundation for further studies and comparison of the incidence of aseptic loosening of both types of prosthesis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6595119
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65951192019-09-10 Comparative Analysis of Early Follow‐up of Biologic Fixation and Cemented Stem Fixation for Femoral Tumor Prosthesis Li, Yuan Sun, Yang Shan, Hua‐chao Niu, Xiao‐hui Orthop Surg Clinical Articles OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy between biologic fixation and traditional cement stems for the fixation of distal femoral prostheses for reconstruction following tumor resection. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed of patients who received a first distal femoral tumor prosthesis, with a rotating hinge, in the Department of Orthopaedic Oncology of Beijing Jishuitan Hospital between October 2011 and January 2016. Two hundred and sixty eligible cases were enrolled, with a cemented fixation used in 199 of these cases and a biologic fixation in 61 cases. Survival rates and survival time of prostheses were analyzed, with prosthetic failure considered as the endpoint event for survival time of the prosthesis. Kaplan–Meier survival curve and the log‐rank test were used to compare survival rates between the two types of fixation methods, and factors that may affect the survival rate of prosthesis were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 260 cases forming our study group, 138 were males and 122 females, with 102 males and 97 females in the cemented fixation group (mean age, 25.8 years; range, 8–72 years) and 36 males and 25 females in the biologic fixation group (mean age, 25.5 years; range, 12–59 years). Osteosarcoma was the most common type of tumor (188 cases, 72.3%), of which 145 cases (72.9%) were in the cemented and 45 cases (72.1%) in the biologic fixation group. Among the 260 cases enrolled into the study group, 13 patients were lost to follow‐up. The average duration of follow‐up for the remaining 247 cases was 28.8 months (median, 28.8 months; range, 4–61 months). The 3‐year overall survival rate of prostheses was 87.2% for the biologic fixation group and 80.4% in the cemented fixation group (P = 0.389). The 3‐year mechanical survival rate (excluding cases of infection and oncologic progression) was 100% for the biologic fixation and 97.6% for the cemented fixation group (P = 0.468). Complications were identified in 21 cases: 3 cases (5%) in the biologic and 18 cases (9.6%) in the cemented fixation group (P = 0.264). Two revisions were required in the cemented fixation group, but no revision was required in the biologic fixation group. A total of 10 patients required amputation after prosthesis implantation. Of these, 7 cases (4 cement and 3 biologic) were due to tumor recurrence; 3 cases were due to infection, with all cases occurring in the cement fixation group. CONCLUSION: The current study provides a baseline reference for future mid‐term to long‐term follow‐up, laying the foundation for further studies and comparison of the incidence of aseptic loosening of both types of prosthesis. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2019-06-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6595119/ /pubmed/31243921 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12483 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Chinese Orthopaedic Association and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Articles
Li, Yuan
Sun, Yang
Shan, Hua‐chao
Niu, Xiao‐hui
Comparative Analysis of Early Follow‐up of Biologic Fixation and Cemented Stem Fixation for Femoral Tumor Prosthesis
title Comparative Analysis of Early Follow‐up of Biologic Fixation and Cemented Stem Fixation for Femoral Tumor Prosthesis
title_full Comparative Analysis of Early Follow‐up of Biologic Fixation and Cemented Stem Fixation for Femoral Tumor Prosthesis
title_fullStr Comparative Analysis of Early Follow‐up of Biologic Fixation and Cemented Stem Fixation for Femoral Tumor Prosthesis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Analysis of Early Follow‐up of Biologic Fixation and Cemented Stem Fixation for Femoral Tumor Prosthesis
title_short Comparative Analysis of Early Follow‐up of Biologic Fixation and Cemented Stem Fixation for Femoral Tumor Prosthesis
title_sort comparative analysis of early follow‐up of biologic fixation and cemented stem fixation for femoral tumor prosthesis
topic Clinical Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6595119/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31243921
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12483
work_keys_str_mv AT liyuan comparativeanalysisofearlyfollowupofbiologicfixationandcementedstemfixationforfemoraltumorprosthesis
AT sunyang comparativeanalysisofearlyfollowupofbiologicfixationandcementedstemfixationforfemoraltumorprosthesis
AT shanhuachao comparativeanalysisofearlyfollowupofbiologicfixationandcementedstemfixationforfemoraltumorprosthesis
AT niuxiaohui comparativeanalysisofearlyfollowupofbiologicfixationandcementedstemfixationforfemoraltumorprosthesis