Does the Duration of Primary and First Revision Surgery Influence the Probability of First and Subsequent Implant Failures after Extremity Sarcoma Resection and Megaprosthetic Reconstruction?

Abstract

Simple SummaryTumor endoprostheses are a common type of reconstruction after the resection of an extremity bone sarcoma. However, in the long-term, first and subsequent implant failures leading to revision surgery are common. One potential risk factor for implant failure is the length of surgery. This study investigates the impact of the length of surgery on prosthetic survival in 568 patients with sarcoma. Patients who had a first implant failure had a longer surgery; however, there were no differences in the infection-free survival, but only in the probability of mechanical failure. Patients with a subsequent revision surgery for infection had a shorter duration of surgery during the first revision. In conclusion, a shorter surgery appears beneficial; however, longer surgeries are not clearly associated with infection. In revision surgery, a longer operating time, indicating a more thorough debridement, may be desirable.Complications in megaprosthetic reconstruction following sarcoma resection are quite common. While several risk factors for failure have been explored, there is a scarcity of studies investigating the effect of the duration of surgery. We performed a retrospective study of 568 sarcoma patients that underwent megaprosthetic reconstruction between 1993 and 2015. Differences in the length of surgery and implant survival were assessed with the Kaplan–Meier method, the log-rank test and multivariate Cox regressions using an optimal cut-off value determined by receiver operating curves analysis using Youden’s index. 230 patients developed a first and 112 patients a subsequent prosthetic failure. The median duration of initial surgery was 210 min. Patients who developed a first failure had a longer duration of the initial surgery (225 vs. 205 min, p = 0.0001). There were no differences in the probability of infection between patients with longer and shorter duration of initial surgery (12% vs. 13% at 5 years, p = 0.492); however, the probability of mechanical failure was higher in patients with longer initial surgery (38% vs. 23% at 5 years, p = 0.006). The median length of revision surgery for the first megaprosthetic failure was 101 min. Patients who underwent first revision for infection and did not develop a second failure had a longer median duration of the first revision surgery (150 min vs. 120 min, p = 0.016). A shorter length of the initial surgery appears beneficial, however, the notion that longer operating time increases the risk of deep infection could not be reproduced in our study. In revision surgery for infection, a longer operating time, possibly indicating a more thorough debridement, appears to be associated with a lower risk for subsequent revision.