Use of Endoprostheses for Proximal Femur Metastases Results in a Rapid Rehabilitation and Low Risk of Implant Failure. A Prospective Population-based Study

Overview

Journal J Bone Oncol

Publisher Elsevier

Date 2019 Dec 25

PMID 31871883

Citations 9

Authors

Michala Skovlund Sorensen

Peter Frederik Horstmann

Klaus Hindso

Michael Mork Petersen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Objectives: Endoprosthesis is considered a durable implant for treating metastatic bone disease of the proximal femur (MBDf).

Objectives: • What is the revision risk after surgery for MBDf using endoprosthesis versus internal fixation?• When do patients with MBDf treated with endoprosthesis restore quality of life (QoL) and how long time does it take to rehabilitate functional outcome?

Methods: A prospective, population-based, multicentre study of 110 patients. Patients were followed for a minimum of two years after surgery. No patients were lost to implant failure nor survival follow-up.

Results: Forty-four patients were treated with internal fixation and 66 patients received endoprostheses. Two-year implant failure risk for internal fixation was 7% (95CI: 0-14%) versus 2% (95CI: 0-5%) for endoprostheses ( = 0.058).Eq-5D improved to the same level as one month prior to surgery six-weeks after surgery, and the score improved further six months after surgery (median score from 0.603 to 0.694,  = 0.007). MSTS score increased from 12 points after surgery to 23 points six-months after surgery (<0.001).

Conclusions: Endoprosthesis for treatment of MBDf results in low implant failure rate. Patients are satisfied with the functional outcome. QoL is restored six-weeks after surgery. Authors advocate for caution using internal fixation for MBDf due to findings of a possible high early postoperative revision risk.

Citing Articles

Surgical management of metastatic lesions in the proximal femur: a systematic review.

Iljazi A, Andersen M, Brorson S, Petersen M, Sorensen M EFORT Open Rev. 2025; 10(2):104-114.

PMID: 40071964 PMC: 11825154. DOI: 10.1530/EOR-24-0138.

A survey to determine the zone of equipoise for the Proximal FEmur Resection or Internal Fixation fOR Metastases (PERFORM) randomized controlled trial.

Fogel J, Ng V, Schubert T, Forsberg J, Randall R, Becker R Trials. 2024; 25(1):759.

PMID: 39533439 PMC: 11558838. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08590-z.

A Survey to Determine the Zone of Equipoise for the Proximal FEmur Resection or Internal Fixation fOR Metastases (PERFORM) Randomized Controlled Trial.

Fogel J, Ng V, Schubert T, Forsberg J, Randall R, Becker R Res Sq. 2024; .

PMID: 39483876 PMC: 11527354. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4810027/v1.

Risk of complications and implant survival of surgical treatment of proximal femoral metastasis: a meta-analysis.

Solou K, Cosentino M, Atherley OMeally A, Aso A, Aiba H, Donati D Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024; 34(4):1779-1794.

PMID: 38578441 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-024-03930-w.

Orthopaedic surgeons' ability to detect pathologic hip fractures: review of 1484 fractures reported to the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register.

Sund A, Dybvik E, Gjertsen J J Orthop Surg Res. 2023; 18(1):832.

PMID: 37925444 PMC: 10625282. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04336-w.

References

Ward W, Holsenbeck S, Dorey F, Spang J, Howe D . Metastatic disease of the femur: surgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003; (415 Suppl):S230-44. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000093849.72468.82. View

Sorensen M, Hindso K, Horstmann P, Troelsen A, Dalsgaard S, Fog T . Incidence of surgical interventions for metastatic bone disease in the extremities: a population-based cohort study. Acta Oncol. 2019; 58(4):456-462. DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2018.1549368. View

Jacofsky D, Haidukewych G . Management of pathologic fractures of the proximal femur: state of the art. J Orthop Trauma. 2004; 18(7):459-69. DOI: 10.1097/00005131-200408000-00013. View

Errani C, Mavrogenis A, Cevolani L, Spinelli S, Piccioli A, Maccauro G . Treatment for long bone metastases based on a systematic literature review. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016; 27(2):205-211. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-016-1857-9. View

Harvey N, Ahlmann E, Allison D, Wang L, Menendez L . Endoprostheses last longer than intramedullary devices in proximal femur metastases. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 470(3):684-91. PMC: 3270182. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2038-0. View

Schulman K, Kohles J . Economic burden of metastatic bone disease in the U.S. Cancer. 2007; 109(11):2334-42. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22678. View

Steensma M, Healey J . Trends in the surgical treatment of pathologic proximal femur fractures among Musculoskeletal Tumor Society members. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 471(6):2000-6. PMC: 3706680. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2724-6. View

Quinn R, Randall R, Benevenia J, Berven S, Raskin K . Contemporary management of metastatic bone disease: tips and tools of the trade for general practitioners. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013; 95(20):1887-95. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-201310160-00011. View

Damron T, Sim F . Surgical treatment for metastatic disease of the pelvis and the proximal end of the femur. Instr Course Lect. 2000; 49:461-70. View

10.

Kirkinis M, Lyne C, Wilson M, Choong P . Metastatic bone disease: A review of survival, prognostic factors and outcomes following surgical treatment of the appendicular skeleton. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016; 42(12):1787-1797. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.03.036. View

11.

Bickels J, Dadia S, Lidar Z . Surgical management of metastatic bone disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(6):1503-16. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00175. View

12.

Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D . Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011; 20(10):1727-36. PMC: 3220807. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. View

13.

Ranstam J, Karrholm J, Pulkkinen P, Makela K, Espehaug B, Pedersen A . Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data. I. Introduction and background. Acta Orthop. 2011; 82(3):253-7. PMC: 3235301. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2011.588862. View

14.

Eastley N, Newey M, Ashford R . Skeletal metastases - the role of the orthopaedic and spinal surgeon. Surg Oncol. 2012; 21(3):216-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2012.04.001. View

15.

Schmidt M, Pedersen L, Sorensen H . The Danish Civil Registration System as a tool in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2014; 29(8):541-9. DOI: 10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3. View

16.

Angelini A, Trovarelli G, Berizzi A, Pala E, Breda A, Maraldi M . Treatment of pathologic fractures of the proximal femur. Injury. 2018; 49 Suppl 3:S77-S83. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.09.044. View

17.

Bauer H . Controversies in the surgical management of skeletal metastases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87(5):608-17. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.87B5.16021. View

18.

Potter B . CORR Insights®: External Validation and Optimization of the SPRING Model for Prediction of Survival After Surgical Treatment of Bone Metastases of the Extremities. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018; 476(8):1600-1602. PMC: 6259732. DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000345. View

19.

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

20.

Ranstam J, Karrholm J, Pulkkinen P, Makela K, Espehaug B, Pedersen A . Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data. II. Guidelines. Acta Orthop. 2011; 82(3):258-67. PMC: 3235302. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2011.588863. View