Modular Prosthetic Reconstruction of Major Bone Defects of the Distal End of the Humerus

Department of Orthopaedics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Impact Factor: 4.31). 06/2011; 93(11):1064-74. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00239
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Bone defects of the distal end of the humerus require complex reconstructions, for which standard prostheses may be insufficient. We investigated the outcomes of distal humeral reconstruction with use of a modular prosthesis.
Fifty-three elbows in fifty-two patients underwent reconstruction with a modular prosthesis (twelve total humeral replacements and forty-one distal humeral replacements) after tumor resection (thirty-eight elbows) or because of massive joint degeneration (fifteen elbows). In the tumor group, twenty-three patients (twenty-four elbows) had metastatic disease and fourteen had a primary tumor. Degenerative defects of the distal end of the humerus were caused by pseudarthrosis (six elbows), prosthetic failure (five), trauma (two), osteomyelitis (one), and supracondylar fracture (one). The mean duration of follow-up for all patients was twenty-eight months (median, thirteen months; range, one to 219 months).
The mean Inglis-Pellicci score in the tumor group was 84 points, and the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 78%. Patients with total humeral reconstruction had worse scores than those with distal humeral reconstruction. Twenty-four patients died of disease at a mean of thirteen months after surgery. Local tumor control was achieved in all patients. In the revision group, the mean Inglis-Pellicci score was 76 points. The Inglis-Pellicci score was significantly better for patients in the tumor group. Eight patients (15%) had a deep periprosthetic infection, requiring amputation in one patient (2%) and prosthetic removal in two patients (4%). Four patients (8%) had the implants revised for aseptic loosening.
Modular prostheses of the distal end of the humerus provide a stable reconstruction of the elbow with satisfactory function and disease control in patients with a tumor, but careful patient selection is required when the prostheses are used for revision surgery in patients without a tumor.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conventional survival analysis for endoprosthetic complications does not consider competing events adequately. Patients who die of their disease are no longer at risk for complications; therefore, death as a competing event may alter survivorship estimates in the orthopaedic-oncological setting.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 05/2014; 473(3). DOI:10.1007/s11999-014-3703-x · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Primary bone sarcomas typically arise in the long bones and the pelvis of children and adolescence but may also occur in adults. Meta/diaphysial tumour involvement resulting in the necessity of a joint replacement is more common than diaphysial tumour sites.
    Der Unfallchirurg 07/2014; 117(7):600-6. DOI:10.1007/s00113-013-2476-0 · 0.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the case of primary malignant tumors, extensive metastatic disease, major trauma or end-stage revision arthroplasty, the orthopaedic surgeon often has to deal with the need to reconstruct large skeletal defects, or replace bone of low quality. In the past years this was frequently impossible, and the only solution was amputation of the extremity. Later, the introduction of custom-made endoprostheses capable of reconstructing large skeletal defects, also known as megaprostheses, allowed for sparing of the extremity. This was especially valuable in the case of oncologic orthopaedic surgery, as advances in the medical treatment of sarcoma patients improved prognosis and limb-preserving surgery proved to have comparable patient survival rates to amputation. However, custom-made designs were implicated in frequent mechanical failures. Furthermore, they were extremely difficult to revise. The introduction of modular endoprostheses in the 1980s marked a new era in orthopaedic oncologic surgery. Modular megaprostheses consist of a number of different components in readily available sets, which can be assembled in various combinations to best address the specific bone defect. Moreover, they proved to have considerably lower rate of mechanical failures, which were also much easier to address during revision surgery by replacing only the parts that failed. The functional outcome after reconstruction with megasprostheses is often very satisfactory and the patient can enjoy a good quality of life. Nowadays, the major challenge is to eliminate the rate of non-mechanical complications associated with surgery of that magnitude, namely the risk for wound dehiscence and necrosis, deep infection, as well as local recurrence of the tumor. In our present mini-review, we attempt to make a critical approach of the available literature, focusing on the multiple aspects of reconstructive surgery using megaprostheses. We present the evolution of megasprosthetic implants, the indications for their use, and describe the outcome of surgery, so that the non-specialized orthopedic surgeon also becomes familiar with that kind of surgery which is usually performed in tertiary centers. A special interest lays in the recent developments that promise for even better results and fewer complications.
    The Open Orthopaedics Journal 10/2014; 8(1):384-9. DOI:10.2174/1874325001408010384