Plate-prosthesis Composite Reconstruction After Large Segmental Resection of Proximal Humeral Tumors: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Overview

Journal Medicine (Baltimore)

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2019 May 31

PMID 31145303

Citations 5

Authors

Ran Wei

Wei Guo

Rongli Yang

Xiaodong Tang

Yi Yang

Tao Ji

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Since the standard reconstructive option after large segmental resection of proximal humeral tumors remained controversial, we designed and applied plate-prosthesis composite (PPC) for this circumstance. The purposes of the study were to: compare the functional outcome, implant survival (IS), surgical risk of PPC with those of conventional proximal humeral prosthesis (PHP); and describe the design and reconstructive procedure of PPC.Twenty patients (11 males, 9 females), who received intraarticular proximal humeral resection without preservation of abductor mechanism, were included in this study, with a mean resection length accounting for 72.5% (range, 61.9-81.8%) of whole humeral length. According to the reconstructive options, we categorized patients into PPC group (9 patients) and PHP group (11 patients). PPC was a semi-custom-made endoprosthesis, with modular proximal part same as PHP and custom-made distal part including dumpy stem and composite lateral anatomic plate for distal humerus. The mechanical prosthetic complication was defined as the imaging evidence regardless of reoperation. The IS was defined as the time from surgery to the occurrence of mechanical prosthetic complication.The mean follow-up time was 40.1 months (range, 14-129). The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 93 scores of PPC and PHP group showed no significant difference (73.3% vs 70.0%, P = .46). Compared to PHP group, PPC group showed significantly lower mechanical prosthetic complication rates (0 vs 45.4%, P = .03) and better IS (86.0 vs 59.3 ± 21.7 months, P = .028). Moreover, the comparison of surgical time (3.2 vs 3.3 hours, P = .60), blood loss (288.9 vs 376.4 mL, P = .15) and perioperative complication rates (11.1% vs 18.2%, P = .58) between 2 groups showed no differences.For reconstruction after large segmental resection of proximal humeral tumors, PPC achieved better IS while maintained similar functional outcome compared to conventional PHP without influencing the complexity and safety of surgery.

Citing Articles

Graft Infections in Biologic Reconstructions in the Oncologic Setting: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Sambri A, Zunarelli R, Morante L, Paganelli C, Parisi S, Bortoli M J Clin Med. 2024; 13(16).

PMID: 39200798 PMC: 11354657. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13164656.

Computer-aided Design and 3D-printed Personalized Stem-plate Composite for Precision Revision of the Proximal Humerus Endoprosthetic Replacement: A Technique Note.

Li Z, Lu M, Zhang Y, Gong T, Wang J, Luo Y Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(11):3000-3005.

PMID: 37723892 PMC: 10622279. DOI: 10.1111/os.13857.

Radiographic Assessment of Bilateral Asymmetry in the Upper Extremities of Living Humans.

Kharbat A, Cox C, Martinez J, Mackay B Cureus. 2023; 15(3):e35957.

PMID: 37050975 PMC: 10085364. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.35957.

Efficacy and safety of a 3D-printed arthrodesis prosthesis for reconstruction after resection of the proximal humerus: preliminary outcomes with a minimum 2-year follow-up.

Liang H, Guo W, Yang Y, Li D, Yang R, Tang X BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022; 23(1):635.

PMID: 35787280 PMC: 9251937. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05581-6.

Proximal Humerus Reconstruction after Tumor Resection: An Overview of Surgical Management.

DArienzo A, Ipponi E, Ruinato A, Franco S, Colangeli S, Andreani L Adv Orthop. 2021; 2021:5559377.

PMID: 33828866 PMC: 8004366. DOI: 10.1155/2021/5559377.

References

Teunis T, Nota S, Hornicek F, Schwab J, Lozano-Calderon S . Outcome after reconstruction of the proximal humerus for tumor resection: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472(7):2245-53. PMC: 4048415. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3474-4. View

Bus M, van de Sande M, Taminiau A, Dijkstra P . Is there still a role for osteoarticular allograft reconstruction in musculoskeletal tumour surgery? a long-term follow-up study of 38 patients and systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B(4):522-530. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B4.BJJ-2016-0443.R2. View

Tang X, Guo W, Yang R, Tang S, Ji T . Synthetic mesh improves shoulder function after intraarticular resection and prosthetic replacement of proximal humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015; 473(4):1464-71. PMC: 4353552. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4139-7. View

Barbier D, de Billy B, Gicquel P, Bourelle S, Journeau P . Is the Clavicula Pro Humero Technique of Value for Reconstruction After Resection of the Proximal Humerus in Children?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(10):2550-2561. PMC: 5599409. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-017-5438-y. View

Kumar S, Sperling J, Haidukewych G, Cofield R . Periprosthetic humeral fractures after shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(4):680-9. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200404000-00003. View

Jamshidi K, Najd-Mazhar F, Abolghasemzadeh Ahangar F, Mirzaei A . The effect of cement augmentation and anteromedial plating on proximal humerus allograft reconstruction. J Orthop Sci. 2016; 22(1):69-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jos.2016.09.002. View

van de Sande M, Dijkstra P, Taminiau A . Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction. Int Orthop. 2010; 35(9):1375-80. PMC: 3167452. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-010-1152-z. View

Lazerges C, Dagneaux L, Degeorge B, Tardy N, Coulet B, Chammas M . Composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty can provide good function and quality of life in cases of malignant tumour of the proximal humerus. Int Orthop. 2017; 41(12):2619-2625. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3538-7. View

Fujibuchi T, Matsumoto S, Shimoji T, Ae K, Tanizawa T, Gokita T . New endoprosthesis suspension method with polypropylene monofilament knitted mesh after resection of bone tumors in proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 24(6):882-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.10.011. View

10.

ENNEKING W, Dunham W, Gebhardt M, Malawar M, Pritchard D . A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993; (286):241-6. View

11.

Ruggieri P, Mavrogenis A, Guerra G, Mercuri M . Preliminary results after reconstruction of bony defects of the proximal humerus with an allograft-resurfacing composite. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(8):1098-103. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B8.26011. View

12.

Cannon C, Paraliticci G, Lin P, Lewis V, Yasko A . Functional outcome following endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009; 18(5):705-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2008.10.011. View

13.

Schoch B, Mehta S, Namdari S . Surgical Fixation of Periprosthetic Humerus Fractures Using an Extension Plate: Surgical Technique and Report of 5 Cases. J Orthop Trauma. 2017; 31(12):e432-e435. DOI: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000000935. View

14.

Abdeen A, Hoang B, Athanasian E, Morris C, Boland P, Healey J . Allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction of the proximal part of the humerus: functional outcome and survivorship. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(10):2406-15. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00815. View

15.

Liu T, Zhang Q, Guo X, Zhang X, Li Z, Li X . Treatment and outcome of malignant bone tumors of the proximal humerus: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014; 15:69. PMC: 3975708. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-69. View

16.

Puri A, Gulia A . An inexpensive reconstruction method after resection in tumors of the proximal humerus with extensive involvement of the diaphysis. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2011; 5(2):44-6. PMC: 3157097. DOI: 10.4103/0973-6042.83196. View

17.

Mimata Y, Nishida J, Sato K, Suzuki Y, Doita M . Glenohumeral arthrodesis for malignant tumor of the shoulder girdle. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014; 24(2):174-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.05.023. View

18.

Kumar D, Grimer R, Abudu A, Carter S, Tillman R . Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal humerus. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003; 85(5):717-22. View

19.

Henderson E, Groundland J, Pala E, Dennis J, Wooten R, Cheong D . Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(5):418-29. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00834. View

20.

Streitbuerger A, Henrichs M, Gosheger G, Ahrens H, Nottrott M, Guder W . Improvement of the shoulder function after large segment resection of the proximal humerus with the use of an inverse tumour prosthesis. Int Orthop. 2014; 39(2):355-61. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-014-2560-2. View