Cemented Vs Uncemented Megaprostheses in Proximal Femur Metastases: a Multicentric Comparative Study

Overview

Journal BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties Orthopedics
Physiology

Date 2022 Sep 6

PMID 36068628

Authors

Maria Serena Oliva

Francesco Muratori

Raffaele Vitiello

Antonio Ziranu

Lorenzo Foschi

Giuseppe Rovere

Cesare Meschini

Domenico Andrea Campanacci

Giulio Maccauro

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Hip megaprostheses are a long known reconstructive method in the treatment of proximal femur metastases. The use of cemented or uncemented stems is still matter of debate. The aim of this study to compare cemented and uncemented megaprostheses on functional outcomes and complications, in order to establish the role of cementation.

Methods: We retrospectively analysed 51 metastatic patients with proximal femur metastases treated with endoprosthetic reconstruction by megaprostheses, 25 with cementless stems and 26 with cemented ones with different megaprosthetic implants. The primary endpoint was MSTS score, and the secondary endpoint was to state the incidence of surgical and clinical complications in the two groups. An un-paired T test was used to compare anthropometric, anamnestic data, and MSTS. Chi-square test was performed for evaluation of complication in the two group. Multiple linear regression was used to match the functional outcomes and complications' incidence in the population study. Logistic regression was performed to analyse the odds ratio of different parameters and their role in the incidence of complications.

Results: The mean follow-up was 50.1 months (+ 12.5). In thirty case right side was involved. No statistical differences were noticed between Group A and B regard the age, gender, active fracture/impending fracture. Comparing the MSTS results within the two groups at last follow-up, the score cemented group was higher than cementless one (17.9 + 7.8 vs 24.2 + 5.3; statistical significance p = 0.001). Regarding surgical complications a logistic regression was performed to analyse the odds ratio of age, cementation and length of resection; cementation confirm and odds ratio of 11 times in the incidence of surgical complications.

Conclusions: Cementation seems to be more liable to complications onset, while improves functional score in metastatic patients compared to uncemented megaprostheses. More studies have to be conducted in order to create a protocol and establish criteria to use cemented or uncemented stems in a frail population like metastatic patients.

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.

Hemiarthroplasty vs. internal fixation for nondisplaced femoral neck fracture in mainland China: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Wang S, Tan L, Sheng B Front Surg. 2024; 11:1437290.

PMID: 39268494 PMC: 11391527. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1437290.

Carbon vs. Titanium Nails in the Treatment of Impending and Pathological Fractures: A Literature Review.

Pesare E, Meschini C, Caredda M, Messina F, Rovere G, Solarino G J Clin Med. 2024; 13(10).

PMID: 38792483 PMC: 11121808. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13102940.

Proximal Femur Megaprostheses in Orthopedic Oncology: Evaluation of a Standardized Post-operative Rehabilitation Protocol.

Andreani L, Ipponi E, Falcinelli F, Cordoni M, Bechini E, Vannucci L Indian J Orthop. 2024; 58(3):323-329.

PMID: 38425819 PMC: 10899131. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-023-01092-1.

Electrochemotherapy in the Treatment of Bone Metastases: A Systematic Review.

Bocchi M, Meschini C, Pietramala S, Perna A, Oliva M, Matrangolo M J Clin Med. 2023; 12(19).

PMID: 37834793 PMC: 10573742. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12196150.

References

Janssen S, Kortlever J, Ready J, Raskin K, Ferrone M, Hornicek F . Complications After Surgical Management of Proximal Femoral Metastasis: A Retrospective Study of 417 Patients. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016; 24(7):483-94. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00043. View

Capanna R, Piccioli A, Di Martino A, Daolio P, Ippolito V, Maccauro G . Management of long bone metastases: recommendations from the Italian Orthopaedic Society bone metastasis study group. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2014; 14(10):1127-34. DOI: 10.1586/14737140.2014.947691. View

Guzik G . Oncological and functional results after surgical treatment of bone metastases at the proximal femur. BMC Surg. 2018; 18(1):5. PMC: 5784608. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-018-0336-0. View

Spinelli M, Ziranu A, Piccioli A, Maccauro G . Surgical treatment of acetabular metastasis. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016; 20(14):3005-10. View

Piccioli A, Spinelli M, Maccauro G . Impending fracture: A difficult diagnosis. Injury. 2014; 45 Suppl 6:S138-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.10.038. View

Perisano C, Scaramuzzo L, De Santis V, Piccioli A, Ziranu A, Barone C . QUALITY OF LIFE FOLLOWING SURGICAL TREATMENT OF LOWER LIMB METASTASES IN LONG BONE. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015; 29(2):501-7. View

Calabro T, van Rooyen R, Piraino I, Pala E, Trovarelli G, Panagopoulos G . Reconstruction of the proximal femur with a modular resection prosthesis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016; 26(4):415-21. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-016-1764-0. View

Schmolders J, Koob S, Schepers P, Pennekamp P, Gravius S, Wirtz D . Lower limb reconstruction in tumor patients using modular silver-coated megaprostheses with regard to perimegaprosthetic joint infection: a case series, including 100 patients and review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016; 137(2):149-153. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-016-2584-8. View

Pala E, Mavrogenis A, Angelini A, Henderson E, Letson G, Ruggieri P . Cemented versus cementless endoprostheses for lower limb salvage surgery. J BUON. 2013; 18(2):496-503. View

10.

Gosheger G, Gebert C, Ahrens H, Streitbuerger A, Winkelmann W, Hardes J . Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 450:164-71. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000223978.36831.39. View

11.

Ahlmann E, Menendez L, Kermani C, Gotha H . Survivorship and clinical outcome of modular endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplastic disease of the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006; 88(6):790-5. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B6.17519. View

12.

Maccauro G, Cittadini A, Casarci M, Muratori F, De Angelis D, Piconi C . Methotrexate-added acrylic cement: biological and physical properties. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007; 18(5):839-44. DOI: 10.1007/s10856-006-0036-7. View

13.

Rosa M, Maccauro G, Sgambato A, Ardito R, Falcone G, De Santis V . Acrylic cement added with antiblastics in the treatment of bone metastases. Ultrastructural and in vitro analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003; 85(5):712-6. View

14.

Cheng H, Chen B, Soleas I, Ferko N, Cameron C, Hinoul P . Prolonged Operative Duration Increases Risk of Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017; 18(6):722-735. PMC: 5685201. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2017.089. View

15.

Yang T, Yang R, Lin C, Tseng T . Bone Cement Implantation Syndrome in Bone Tumor Surgeries: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Clinical Experience. Orthop Surg. 2020; 13(1):109-115. PMC: 7862161. DOI: 10.1111/os.12842. View

16.

Hines C . Understanding Bone Cement Implantation Syndrome. AANA J. 2019; 86(6):433-441. View

17.

Bischel O, Suda A, Bohm P, Lehner B, Bitsch R, Seeger J . En-Bloc Resection of Metastases of the Proximal Femur and Reconstruction by Modular Arthroplasty is Not Only Justified in Patients with a Curative Treatment Option-An Observational Study of a Consecutive Series of 45 Patients. J Clin Med. 2020; 9(3). PMC: 7141379. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9030758. View

18.

Ziranu A, Lillo M, Fantoni M, Maffulli N, Maccauro G . Single dose cefazolin is safe and effective for pre-operative prophylaxis in orthopaedic oncology. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2019; 32(6 Suppl. 1):45-49. View

19.

Horan T, Andrus M, Dudeck M . CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control. 2008; 36(5):309-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.002. View

20.

Hage W, Aboulafia A, Aboulafia D . Incidence, location, and diagnostic evaluation of metastatic bone disease. Orthop Clin North Am. 2000; 31(4):515-28, vii. DOI: 10.1016/s0030-5898(05)70171-1. View