Cargando…

Frequency and reason for reoperation following non-invasive expandable endoprostheses: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive expandable endoprostheses (NIEPR) utilize an external electromagnetic field to drive an innate mechanical gearbox. This lengthens the extremity following oncological resections in children with a predicted limb length discrepancy (LLD), facilitating limb-salvage. This review...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lex, Johnathan R., Adlan, Amirul, Tsoi, Kim, Evans, Scott, Stevenson, Jonathan D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8529098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34712555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbo.2021.100397
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Non-invasive expandable endoprostheses (NIEPR) utilize an external electromagnetic field to drive an innate mechanical gearbox. This lengthens the extremity following oncological resections in children with a predicted limb length discrepancy (LLD), facilitating limb-salvage. This review was conducted to assess NIEPR implant survival rates and identify modes of implant failure unique to these prostheses. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for all manuscripts evaluating implant survival of NIEPRs implanted into skeletally immature patients following resection of extremity sarcomas. Minimum follow-up of 12 months or implant failure was required for inclusion. Failures were classified using the latest ISOLS classification and exact implant-specific failure modality was also identified. RESULTS: 19 studies met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 10.0 years (7.7 – 11.4 years). The most common locations for NIEPR implantation were the distal femur (343, 76.7%) and proximal tibia (53, 119%). Mean follow-up was 65.3 months (19.4 – 163 months). The overall implant revision rate was 46.2% (0 – 100%); implant specific revisions included maximal prosthesis lengthening with persistent LLD (10.4%), failed extension mechanism (6.1%), implant fracture (7.7%), hinge fracture (1.4%) and bushing wear (0.9%). Persistent clinically significant (>20 mm) LLD at final follow-up was present in 19.2% (0 – 50%) of patients. The mean MSTS score was 85.1% (66.7–96.3%) at final follow-up. CONCLUSION: Implant-related failures are the most common reason for NIEPR revision. Implant reliability appears to be improved with current designs. A sub-classification to the current classification system based on implant-specific failures for NIEPRs is proposed.