» Articles » PMID: 21695701

Patient-oriented Functional Results of Total Femoral Endoprosthetic Reconstruction Following Oncologic Resection

Overview
Journal J Surg Oncol
Date 2011 Jun 23
PMID 21695701
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Objectives: Functional outcomes following oncologic total femoral endoprosthetic reconstruction (TFR) are lacking. We compared patient-oriented functional results of TFRs to proximal femur and distal femur reconstructions (PFR and DFR). We also compared function and complications with regard to knee and hip componentry.

Methods: Fifty-four TFR patients were identified from three institutional prospective databases. Forty-one had fixed- and 13 had rotating-hinge knees, 37 hemiarthroplasty and 17 total hip arthroplasty componentry. Toronto Extremity Salvage Scores (TESS) for n = 27 were compared between groups and to cohorts of PFR (n = 31) and DFR (n = 85) patients using the Mann-Whitney U-test.

Results: Follow-up averaged 4 years. Mechanical complications included five hip dislocations and one femoral malrotation. Four dislocations were in fixed-hinge implants, all in those lacking abductor reattachment. TESS averaged 69.3 ± 17.8, statistically decreased from DFR (P = 0.002) and PFR patients (P = 0.036). No significant differences were detected between patients in the fixed-hinge (n = 18) and rotating-hinge (n = 9) groups (P = 0.944), or total hip (n = 8) and hemiarthroplasty (n = 19) groups (P = 0.633).

Conclusions: TFR is reserved for extreme cases of limb salvage, portending a poor prognosis overall. Function reflects additive impairments from PFR and DFR. TFR outcomes differ little with rotating- or fixed-hinge, total hip or hemiarthroplasty implants.

Citing Articles

Single-Institution Experience With Nononcologic Total Femoral Replacement.

Ouillette R, Chen K, Dipane M, Christ A, McPherson E, Stavrakis A Arthroplast Today. 2025; 31():101607.

PMID: 39850462 PMC: 11754486. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101607.


Outcomes of Abductor Repair Using Mesh Augmentation in Oncologic Proximal Femur Replacement.

Broida S, Salmons H, Owen A, Houdek M Curr Oncol. 2024; 31(10):5730-5736.

PMID: 39451729 PMC: 11506674. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31100425.


Comparative Outcomes and Failure Rates of Total Femur Replacement in Oncologic and Nononcologic Indications: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Lari A, Esmaeil A, AlSalem Y, Alabbad F, Shahin M, Aoude A JBJS Rev. 2024; 12(7).

PMID: 38968379 PMC: 11221795. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.24.00022.


Proximal Femur Salvage in Revision Knee Arthroplasty Due to Oncologic Indications: Long-term Results of Onlay and Overlapping Allograft in Revision Surgeries.

Cho S, Jeon D, Cho W, Song W, Kim Y Clin Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(5):853-863.

PMID: 37811502 PMC: 10551674. DOI: 10.4055/cios22254.


Preserving the rectus femoris and improving limb function after total femoral prosthesis replacement following resection of femoral malignant tumors.

Wu F, Fang X, Yuan D, Xiong Y, Luo Y, Zhang W Front Oncol. 2023; 13:1149342.

PMID: 36998467 PMC: 10043403. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1149342.


References
1.
Kalra S, Abudu A, Murata H, Grimer R, Tillman R, Carter S . Total femur replacement: primary procedure for treatment of malignant tumours of the femur. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010; 36(4):378-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2009.11.002. View

2.
Ward W, dOrey F, Eckardt J . Total femoral endoprosthetic reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995; (316):195-206. View

3.
Wuisman P, ENNEKING W . Prognosis for patients who have osteosarcoma with skip metastasis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990; 72(1):60-8. View

4.
Flugsrud G, Nordsletten L, Espehaug B, Havelin L, Meyer H . The effect of middle-age body weight and physical activity on the risk of early revision hip arthroplasty: a cohort study of 1,535 individuals. Acta Orthop. 2007; 78(1):99-107. DOI: 10.1080/17453670610013493. View

5.
Katznelson A, Nerubay J . Total femoral excision and endoprosthetic replacement in osteosarcoma. Prog Clin Biol Res. 1982; 99:121-33. View