1049 Outcomes After Proximal Femoral Replacements in Metastatic Femoral Disease. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Abstract Aim The aim of the study was to assess outcomes after a proximal femoral replacement (PFR). More PFRs are being performed in accordance with the British Orthopaedic Oncology Society (BOOS) best practice guidance 2016. The population studied was patients with metastatic proximal femoral disease with actual or impending fractures. The intervention and comparator were PFR and intra-medullary nailing (IMN) respectively. The primary outcome was hospital readmission rate (all cause). Secondary outcomes were reoperation rate (all cause, infection) and dislocation rate. Method A literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. The search strategy combined free and MeSH search terms related to population (e.g., “femoral neoplasms” OR “pathological femoral fracture”), intervention and comparator (e.g., “osteosynthesis” “surgery” OR “proximal femoral replacement ”). To pool the outcome data of the studies Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation was used. Readmission rates were generated based on complications requiring absolute hospital admission. Results After exclusions, the search provided 12 studies. The pooled rate of hospital readmission (all cause) was 0.08 (95% CI 0.04 - 0.12) (Figure 2). The pooled rate of reoperation (all cause), reoperation for infection and dislocation rate was 0.05 (95% CI 0.03 – 0.08), 0.01 (95% CI 0.00 – 0.04) and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 – 0.05) respectively. Conclusions Following a PFR for proximal metastatic femoral disease, patients have low rates of hospital readmission and reoperation. Compared to IMN, reoperations are performed for deep infection and dislocations. The major complication with IMNs of metalwork fatigue and failure is overcome with the use of PFRs.