Cargando…
Cemented vs uncemented megaprostheses in proximal femur metastases: a multicentric comparative study
BACKGROUND: Hip megaprostheses are a long known reconstructive method in the treatment of proximal femur metastases. The use of cemented or uncemented stems is still matter of debate. The aim of this study to compare cemented and uncemented megaprostheses on functional outcomes and complications, in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9450228/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36068628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05726-7 |
_version_ | 1784784480019415040 |
---|---|
author | Oliva, Maria Serena Muratori, Francesco Vitiello, Raffaele Ziranu, Antonio Foschi, Lorenzo Rovere, Giuseppe Meschini, Cesare Campanacci, Domenico Andrea Maccauro, Giulio |
author_facet | Oliva, Maria Serena Muratori, Francesco Vitiello, Raffaele Ziranu, Antonio Foschi, Lorenzo Rovere, Giuseppe Meschini, Cesare Campanacci, Domenico Andrea Maccauro, Giulio |
author_sort | Oliva, Maria Serena |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Hip megaprostheses are a long known reconstructive method in the treatment of proximal femur metastases. The use of cemented or uncemented stems is still matter of debate. The aim of this study to compare cemented and uncemented megaprostheses on functional outcomes and complications, in order to establish the role of cementation. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 51 metastatic patients with proximal femur metastases treated with endoprosthetic reconstruction by megaprostheses, 25 with cementless stems and 26 with cemented ones with different megaprosthetic implants. The primary endpoint was MSTS score, and the secondary endpoint was to state the incidence of surgical and clinical complications in the two groups. An un-paired T test was used to compare anthropometric, anamnestic data, and MSTS. Chi-square test was performed for evaluation of complication in the two group. Multiple linear regression was used to match the functional outcomes and complications’ incidence in the population study. Logistic regression was performed to analyse the odds ratio of different parameters and their role in the incidence of complications. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 50.1 months (+ 12.5). In thirty case right side was involved. No statistical differences were noticed between Group A and B regard the age, gender, active fracture/impending fracture. Comparing the MSTS results within the two groups at last follow-up, the score cemented group was higher than cementless one (17.9 + 7.8 vs 24.2 + 5.3; statistical significance p = 0.001). Regarding surgical complications a logistic regression was performed to analyse the odds ratio of age, cementation and length of resection; cementation confirm and odds ratio of 11 times in the incidence of surgical complications. CONCLUSIONS: Cementation seems to be more liable to complications onset, while improves functional score in metastatic patients compared to uncemented megaprostheses. More studies have to be conducted in order to create a protocol and establish criteria to use cemented or uncemented stems in a frail population like metastatic patients. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05726-7. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9450228 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94502282022-09-08 Cemented vs uncemented megaprostheses in proximal femur metastases: a multicentric comparative study Oliva, Maria Serena Muratori, Francesco Vitiello, Raffaele Ziranu, Antonio Foschi, Lorenzo Rovere, Giuseppe Meschini, Cesare Campanacci, Domenico Andrea Maccauro, Giulio BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: Hip megaprostheses are a long known reconstructive method in the treatment of proximal femur metastases. The use of cemented or uncemented stems is still matter of debate. The aim of this study to compare cemented and uncemented megaprostheses on functional outcomes and complications, in order to establish the role of cementation. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 51 metastatic patients with proximal femur metastases treated with endoprosthetic reconstruction by megaprostheses, 25 with cementless stems and 26 with cemented ones with different megaprosthetic implants. The primary endpoint was MSTS score, and the secondary endpoint was to state the incidence of surgical and clinical complications in the two groups. An un-paired T test was used to compare anthropometric, anamnestic data, and MSTS. Chi-square test was performed for evaluation of complication in the two group. Multiple linear regression was used to match the functional outcomes and complications’ incidence in the population study. Logistic regression was performed to analyse the odds ratio of different parameters and their role in the incidence of complications. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 50.1 months (+ 12.5). In thirty case right side was involved. No statistical differences were noticed between Group A and B regard the age, gender, active fracture/impending fracture. Comparing the MSTS results within the two groups at last follow-up, the score cemented group was higher than cementless one (17.9 + 7.8 vs 24.2 + 5.3; statistical significance p = 0.001). Regarding surgical complications a logistic regression was performed to analyse the odds ratio of age, cementation and length of resection; cementation confirm and odds ratio of 11 times in the incidence of surgical complications. CONCLUSIONS: Cementation seems to be more liable to complications onset, while improves functional score in metastatic patients compared to uncemented megaprostheses. More studies have to be conducted in order to create a protocol and establish criteria to use cemented or uncemented stems in a frail population like metastatic patients. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05726-7. BioMed Central 2022-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9450228/ /pubmed/36068628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05726-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis 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 Oliva, Maria Serena Muratori, Francesco Vitiello, Raffaele Ziranu, Antonio Foschi, Lorenzo Rovere, Giuseppe Meschini, Cesare Campanacci, Domenico Andrea Maccauro, Giulio Cemented vs uncemented megaprostheses in proximal femur metastases: a multicentric comparative study |
title | Cemented vs uncemented megaprostheses in proximal femur metastases: a multicentric comparative study |
title_full | Cemented vs uncemented megaprostheses in proximal femur metastases: a multicentric comparative study |
title_fullStr | Cemented vs uncemented megaprostheses in proximal femur metastases: a multicentric comparative study |
title_full_unstemmed | Cemented vs uncemented megaprostheses in proximal femur metastases: a multicentric comparative study |
title_short | Cemented vs uncemented megaprostheses in proximal femur metastases: a multicentric comparative study |
title_sort | cemented vs uncemented megaprostheses in proximal femur metastases: a multicentric comparative study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9450228/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36068628 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05726-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT olivamariaserena cementedvsuncementedmegaprosthesesinproximalfemurmetastasesamulticentriccomparativestudy AT muratorifrancesco cementedvsuncementedmegaprosthesesinproximalfemurmetastasesamulticentriccomparativestudy AT vitielloraffaele cementedvsuncementedmegaprosthesesinproximalfemurmetastasesamulticentriccomparativestudy AT ziranuantonio cementedvsuncementedmegaprosthesesinproximalfemurmetastasesamulticentriccomparativestudy AT foschilorenzo cementedvsuncementedmegaprosthesesinproximalfemurmetastasesamulticentriccomparativestudy AT roveregiuseppe cementedvsuncementedmegaprosthesesinproximalfemurmetastasesamulticentriccomparativestudy AT meschinicesare cementedvsuncementedmegaprosthesesinproximalfemurmetastasesamulticentriccomparativestudy AT campanaccidomenicoandrea cementedvsuncementedmegaprosthesesinproximalfemurmetastasesamulticentriccomparativestudy AT maccaurogiulio cementedvsuncementedmegaprosthesesinproximalfemurmetastasesamulticentriccomparativestudy |