Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review.
ABSTRACT Massive endoprostheses provide orthopaedic oncologists with many reconstructive options after tumor resection, although failure rates are high. Because the number of these procedures is limited, failure of these devices has not been studied or classified adequately. This investigation is a multicenter review of the use of segmental endoprostheses with a focus on the modes, frequency, and timing of failure.
Retrospective reviews of the operative databases of five institutions identified 2174 skeletally mature patients who received a large endoprosthesis for tumor resection. Patients who had failure of the endoprosthesis were identified, and the etiology and timing of failure were noted. Similar failures were tabulated and classified on the basis of the risk of amputation and urgency of treatment. Statistical analysis was performed to identify dependent relationships among mode of failure, anatomic location, and failure timing. A literature review was performed, and similar analyses were done for these data.
Five hundred and thirty-four failures were identified. Five modes of failure were identified and classified: soft-tissue failures (Type 1), aseptic loosening (Type 2), structural failures (Type 3), infection (Type 4), and tumor progression (Type 5). The most common mode of failure in this series was infection; in the literature, it was aseptic loosening. Statistical dependence was found between anatomic location and mode of failure and between mode of failure and time to failure. Significant differences were found in the incidence of failure mode Types 1, 2, 3, and 4 when polyaxial and uniaxial joints were compared. Significant dependence was also found between failure mode and anatomic location in the literature data.
There are five primary modes of endoprosthetic failure, and their relative incidences are significantly different and dependent on anatomic location. Mode of failure and time to failure also show a significant dependence. Because of these relationships, cumulative reporting of segmental failures should be avoided because anatomy-specific trends will be missed. Endoprosthetic design improvements should address failure modes specific to the anatomic location.
- SourceAvailable from: Andreas Leithner[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Rotating hinge knee prostheses are known to provide inherent stability. Yoke fractures of the hinged tibial insert of modern generation rotating hinge devices are a matter of continued concern. The aim of this study was to describe incidence and management of yoke fracture of the LPS™ hinged tibial insert. Retrospective data analysis of two institutions identified 40 patients with a LPS™ total knee arthroplasty. Implant survival and prosthetic complications was calculated according to Kaplan-Meier. Out of the group of 40 patients, four fractures of the metal yoke occurred in four cases (failure rate: 10%). Furthermore, a second fracture occurred in two patients. The overall revision-free prosthetic survival was 57% at 38 months, while prosthetic survival until yoke fracture was 86% at 38 months. Handling yoke fractures as mechanical complication includes replacing the hinged insert, stabilization of the joint and joint line height preservation in order to decrease the cantilever effect at the insert-base plate interface.International Orthopaedics 12/2011; 36(5):993-8. · 2.32 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Approximately one in five patients with giant cell tumor of bone presents with a pathologic fracture. However, recurrence rates after resection or curettage differ substantially in the literature and it is unclear when curettage is reasonable after fracture. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined: (1) local recurrence rates after curettage with adjuvants or en bloc resection; (2) complication rates after both surgical techniques and whether fracture healing occurred after curettage with adjuvants; and (3) function after both treatment modalities for giant cell tumor of bone with a pathologic fracture. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 48 patients with fracture from among 422 patients treated between 1981 and 2009. The primary treatment was resection in 25 and curettage with adjuvants in 23 patients. Minimum followup was 27 months (mean, 101 months; range, 27-293 months). RESULTS: Recurrence rate was higher after curettage with adjuvants when compared with resection (30% versus 0%). Recurrence risk appears higher with soft tissue extension. The complication rate was lower after curettage with adjuvants when compared with resection (4% versus 16%) and included aseptic loosening of prosthesis, allograft failure, and pseudoarthrosis. Tumor and fracture characteristics did not increase complication risk. Fracture healing occurred in 24 of 25 patients. Mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was higher after curettage with adjuvants (mean, 28; range, 23-30; n = 18) when compared with resection (mean, 25; range, 13-30; n = 25). CONCLUSIONS: Our observations suggest curettage with adjuvants is a reasonable option for giant cell tumor of bone with pathologic fractures. Resection should be considered with soft tissue extension, fracture through a local recurrence, or when structural integrity cannot be regained after reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 08/2012; · 2.79 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to evaluate the early results of a custom non-fluted diaphyseal press-fit stem for use with the global modular replacement system (GMRS) tumour prosthesis and the early complications associated with this implant. A total of 53 patients (54 implants) were identified from a prospective database where a custom non-fluted diaphyseal press-fit stem was used as part of the reconstruction of the limb. All patients had a minimum of 22 months of follow-up. The rates of stem revision for any reason were calculated. The median follow-up was 36 months (range 22-85 months). Aseptic loosening was not observed in any patient. At early term follow-up, an uncemented non-fluted stem used with the GMRS tumour endoprosthesis provides a stable bone-prosthesis interface with no evidence of aseptic loosening.International Orthopaedics 09/2013; · 2.32 Impact Factor