Long-term clinical outcomes of allograft-prosthetic reconstruction for tumours of the extremities.

What's New in Musculoskeletal Tumor Surgery.

In smaller studies, allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) has been used for proximal humerus bone loss with some success, although with notable complication risk. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to describe outcomes and complications after proximal humerus APC and how major APC complications are defined in the literature. A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried for articles on APC for proximal humeral bone loss secondary to tumor, fracture, or failed arthroplasty. Primary outcomes included postoperative range of motion, outcome scores (Musculoskeletal Tumor Society [MSTS], Simple Shoulder Test [SST], American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Constant, visual analog scale [VAS], and subjective shoulder value [SSV]), and complication incidence. We also described individual study definitions of APC malunion/nonunion, methods of postoperative evaluation, malunion/nonunion rates, allograft fracture/fragmentation rates, and mean union time, when available. Secondarily, we compared hemiarthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Sixteen articles including 375 shoulders were evaluated (average age: 49 years, follow-up: 54 months). Fifty-seven percent of procedures were performed for tumors, 1% for proximal humerus trauma sequelae, and 42% for revision arthroplasty. Average postoperative forward elevation was 82° (69-94°), abduction 60° (30-90°), and external rotation 23° (17-28°). Average MSTS score was 82% (77%-87%), SST score 5.3 (4.5-6.1), ASES score 64 (54-74), Constant score 44 (38-50), VAS score 2.2 (1.7-2.7), and SSV 51 (45-58). There was a 51% complication rate with an 18% nonallograft surgical complication rate, 26% APC nonunion/malunion/resorption rate, and 10% APC fracture/fragmentation rate. Fifteen percent of nonunited APCs underwent secondary bone grafting; 3% required a new allograft; and overall revision rate was 12%. APC nonunion/malunion was defined in 2 of 16, malunion/nonunion rates in 14 of 16, fracture/fragmentation rates in 6 of 16, and mean union time (7 months) in 4 of 16 studies. APC reconstruction of the proximal humerus remains a treatment option, albeit with substantial complication rates. In addition, there is a need for APC literature to report institutional definitions of nonunion/malunion, postoperative evaluation, and time to union for a more standardized evaluation. Level IV; systematic review. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare the clinical outcomes after proximal humerus reconstruction with a reverse allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) versus reverse endoprosthesis. Per PRISMA guidelines, we queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting clinical outcomes of reverse APC or reverse endoprosthesis reconstruction of the proximal humerus for massive bone loss secondary to tumor, fracture, or failed arthroplasty. We compared postoperative range of motion, outcome scores, and the incidence of complications and revision surgery. Of 259 unique articles, 18 articles were included (267 APC, 260 endoprosthesis). There were no significant differences between the APC and endoprosthesis cohort for postoperative forward elevation (P = .231), external rotation (P = .634), ASES score (P = .420), Constant score (P = .414), MSTS (P = .815), SST (P = .367), or VAS (P = .714). Rate of complications was 15% (31/213) in the APC cohort and 19% (27/144) in the endoprosthesis cohort. The rate of revision surgery was 12% after APC cohort and 7% after endoprosthesis. APC-specific complications included a 10% APC nonunion/malunion/resorption rate and 6% APC fracture/fragmentation rate. Reverse APC and endoprosthesis are reasonable options for proximal humerus reconstruction. APC carries additional risks for complications, warranting evaluation of patients' healing capacity and surgeon experience. Level IV; Systematic Review. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-024-01248-7.

Midterm outcomes allograft prosthetic composite reconstruction for massive bone loss at the elbow

Proximal Femoral Allograft-Prosthetic Composites: Do They Really Restore Bone? A Retrospective Review of Revision Allograft-Prosthetic Composites

Reconstruction of distal femur or proximal tibia in growing patients is a challenge for the high rate of complications and limb length discrepancy at the end of growth. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of children affected by high-grade osteosarcoma of the knee region, reconstructed by osteoarticular bone allograft of distal femur, and proximal tibia. We retrospectively reviewed 25 patients treated for high-grade osteosarcoma, 13 in the distal femur and 12 in the proximal tibia. The mean follow-up was 124 months. Clinical and radiologic evaluation was carried out in the 20 long-term survivors with a minimum follow-up of 7 years from surgery. The rates of survival of the implants were estimated with use of the Kaplan-Meier method. Functional and radiographic evaluation was done according to the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scoring system at the time of the latest follow-up in all the patients that still had the allograft. Five patients died during the first 2 years of follow-up for disease-related causes. Of the remaining 20 osteoarticular allografts (10 of the distal femur and 10 of the proximal tibia), 12 failed: 4 in the distal femur and 8 in the proximal tibia. All the failures were related to a graft fracture, but in 4 patients with subchondral collapse the graft was maintained and converted into an allograft prosthetic composite. No deep infection of the primary reconstruction was observed. The overall rate of allograft survival was 70% at 5 years and 58% at 10 years in the distal femur, and 45% at 5 years and 20% at 10 years in the proximal tibia. At final follow-up, 8 patients still walked on the primary implant, 6 in the distal femur, and 2 in the proximal tibia. The functional outcome of these patients was evaluated as good in 5 patients (3 with distal femoral and 2 with proximal tibial allograft), and poor in 3. Although mechanical complications significantly affect the outcome, osteoarticular allografts may represent a viable option for reconstruction in children older than 8 with high-grade sarcomas about the knee. Level IV.

Strut allograft augmentation restores bone stock in revision elbow arthroplasty, but is not universally successful in preventing a second revision.

After proximal humerus resection for bone tumors, restoring anatomy and shoulder function remains demanding because muscles and bone are removed to obtain tumor-free surgical margins. Current modes of reconstruction such as anatomic modular prostheses, osteoarticular allografts, or allograft-prosthetic composites and arthrodeses are associated with relatively poor shoulder function related to loss of the deltoid and rotator cuff muscles. Newer prosthetic designs like the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) are felt to be useful in other reconstructions where rotator cuff function is compromised, so it seemed logical that it might help in tumor reconstructions as well in patients where the deltoid muscle and its innervation can be preserved. In patients with a tumor of the proximal humerus that can be resected with preservation of the deltoid muscle, (1) What complications are associated with tumor resection and reconstruction with a modular RTSA? (2) What are the functional results of modular RTSA in these patients? From January 2011 to January 2018, we treated 52 patients for bone tumors of the proximal humerus. Of these, three patients were treated with forequarter amputation, 14 were treated with standard modular proximal humerus implants, seven were treated with allograft-prosthetic composites (RTSA-APC), and 28 were treated with a modular RTSA. Generally, we used anatomic modular prosthetic reconstruction if during the tumor resection none of the abductor mechanism could be spared. Conversely, we preferred reconstruction with RTSA if an innervated deltoid muscle could be spared, but the rotator cuff and capsule could not, using RTSA-APC or modular RTSA if humeral osteotomy was distal or proximal to deltoid insertion, respectively. In this study, we retrospectively analyzed only patients treated with modular RTSA after proximal humerus resection. We excluded three patients treated with modular RTSA as revision procedures after mechanical failure of previous biological reconstructions and three patients treated after December 2016 to obtain an expected minimum follow-up of 2 years. There were nine men and 13 women, with a mean (range) age of 55 years (18 to 71). Reconstruction was performed in all patients using silver-coated modular RTSA protheses. Patients were clinically checked according to oncologic protocol. Complications and function were evaluated at final follow-up by the treating surgeon (PR) and shoulder surgeon (AC). Complications were evaluated according to Henderson classification. Functional results were assessed with the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score (range 0 points to 30 points), Constant-Murley score (range 0 to 100), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (range 0 to 100). The statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Complications occurred in five of 22 patients; there was a shoulder dislocation (Type I) in four patients and aseptic loosening (Type II) in one. Function in these patients on the outcomes scales we used was generally satisfactory; the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 29, the mean Constant score was 61, and the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 81. Although this was a small series of patients with heterogeneous diagnoses and resection types, and we were not able to directly compare the results of this procedure with those of other available reconstructions, we found patients treated with RTSA achieved reasonable shoulder function after resection and reconstruction of a proximal humerus tumor. It may not be valuable in all tumor resections, but in patients in whom the deltoid can be partly spared, this procedure appears to reasonably restore short-term shoulder function. However, future larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm these findings. Level IV, therapeutic study.

Advances in chemotherapy, sophisticated imaging, and surgical techniques over the last few decades have allowed limb-salvage surgery (LSS) to become the preferred surgical treatment for bone sarcomas of the extremities. The goal of LLS is to maximize limb functionality to allow for the maintenance of quality of life without compromising overall survival and tumor local recurrence rates. Today, limb-salvage procedures are performed on 80-95% of patients with extremity osteosarcoma, and the 5-year survival rate in extremity osteosarcoma patients is now 60-75%.This chapter will focus on LSS for extremity osteosarcoma. Common types of surgical reconstruction techniques including endoprostheses, intercalary or osteoarticular allografts, vascularized fibular autografts, and allograft prosthetic composites (APC), and their complications such as infection, local recurrence, graft fracture, implant failure, and nonunion will be discussed in detail. Anatomic locations of lesions discussed include the proximal femur, distal femur, proximal tibia, distal tibia, proximal humerus, distal humerus, and forearm bones.

Extended deltopectoral approach for revision total elbow arthroplasty requiring humeral allograft-prosthetic composites in patients with severely compromised proximal humerus bone stock

Management of proximal humerus bone loss with allograft prosthetic composite technique in shoulder arthroplasty

Giant cell tumors of bone (GCTBs) are rare, aggressive tumors, and the proximal humerus is a relatively rare location for GCTBs; limited evidence exists on which surgical approaches and reconstruction techniques are optimal. In the largest case series to date, we evaluated the recurrence rate of proximal humeral GCTBs and the functional outcomes of different resection and reconstruction options in this multicenter study. All 51 patients included in this study received initial surgical treatment for proximal humeral GCTBs from January 2007 to December 2020, with a minimum 2-year follow-up period. Local recurrence and functional outcomes were statistically analyzed in relation to demographic, clinical, and primary surgical variables. Functional outcomes were reported by patients and were assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score and QuickDASH instrument (shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand instrument). The mean follow-up period was 81.5 months (range, 30-191 months), and the overall recurrence rate was 17.6% (9 of 51 patients). The majority of recurrences (n=7) occurred in the first 2 years of follow-up. The intralesional curettage group (n=23) showed a statistically significant difference in the recurrence rate compared with the en bloc resection group (n=28) (34.8% vs. 3.6%, P=.007). Among shoulders receiving en bloc resection, 16 were reconstructed with hemiarthroplasty; 8, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) reconstruction; and 4, arthrodesis. On the basis of intention-to-treat analysis, the mean functional Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores of the groups undergoing curettage, rTSA with APC, hemiarthroplasty, and arthrodesis were 26.0±3.1, 26.0±1.7, 20.3±2.8, and 22.5±1.3, respectively (P<.001 [with P<.001 for curettage vs. hemiarthroplasty and P=.004 for rTSA with APC vs. hemiarthroplasty]) and the mean QuickDASH scores were 14.0±11.0, 11.6±4.5, 33.1±11.8, and 21.6±4.7, respectively (P<.001 [with P<.001 for curettage vs. hemiarthroplasty and P=.003 for rTSA with APC vs. hemiarthroplasty]). On the basis of our data, en bloc resection followed by reverse shoulder arthroplasty showed a lower recurrence rate and no significant difference in functional outcome scores for proximal humeral GCTBs compared with intralesional curettage. Therefore, we believe that rTSA with APC may be reasonable for the initial treatment of proximal humeral GCTBs.

Limb salvage for bone tumors has become the standard method of treatment. This technique involves removal of large segments of bone, most commonly around the hip and knee. Various types of reconstructive options are currently available, including osteoarticular allograft arthroplasty, modular oncology prosthetic arthroplasty, allograft prosthetic composite (APC) arthroplasty, and arthrodesis. Compared to other techniques, APC arthroplasty has many advantages, including restoration of bone stock, customization with conventional implant components, soft tissue attachment of tendons and ligaments, and preservation of the medullary canal of the host bone. The disadvantages of this technique include slow healing in the presence of chemotherapy, the possibility of disease transmission, and availability. The technique is suited either for aggressive benign tumors or for low-grade sarcomas where chemotherapy is not necessary. Further, it represents a good alternative for a failed modular oncology prosthesis, and also for the failed osteoarticular allograft because it restores bone stock. Good functional results have been reported with APC replacements, but long-term follow-up is needed to determine their durability.

Allograft-prosthetic composite versus megaprosthesis in the proximal tibia—What works best?

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Our experimental study presents a set of bone grafts harvested by a minimally invasive procedure from selected deceased donors. Our objective was to compare the concentration of red bone marrow in the cancellous bone harvested in this way from selected regions with the reference harvesting from the iliac crest. Thus, the potential of grafts to heal complicated fractures or non-unions is assessed. MATERIAL AND METHODS The Hospital Department of Pathology provided 10 cadaver preparations - 7 male and 3 female for the experiment. In the process of selection, the age limit was 18-50 years, the other exclusion criteria were severe injuries and burning to death as mechanisms affecting the condition of the skeletal system, bone diseases except for osteoporosis, and malignant diseases. From each preparation, a total of 12 samples of cancellous bone tissue were harvested from pre-defined 6 harvest sites bilaterally - proximal humerus, proximal ulna, greater trochanter of proximal femur, distal femur, proximal tibia and from the reference region of the iliac wing. The grafts were harvested using a 10 mm bone cutter. In total, 120 samples of cancellous bone of the determined diameter and uniform length of 30 mm were obtained. The obtained preparations were laboratory processed, fixed, decalcified and hematoxylin-eosin stained. The samples were assessed microscopically. The share of the bone tissue and cancellous bone was expressed as a percentage. Determined as a healing potential parameter was the concentration of red bone marrow and its ratio to the yellow bone marrow was stated. The hypothesis was tested using the ANOVA analysis of variance. RESULTS The highest concentration of red bone marrow was observed in cancellous grafts harvested from the iliac wing with 34.95%, followed by greater trochanter of proximal femur with 31.7%, distal femur with 26.9% and proximal humerus with 21.9%. Its concentration was negligible in proximal tibia with 2.55% and proximal ulna with 0.15%. By ANOVA statistical method the values of reference samples from the iliac wing and greater trochanter of the femur, distal femur and proximal humerus were compared. The differences are not statistically significant - P 0.60, 0.48 and 0.34 (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the concentration of red bone marrow. Statistically compared were also the values of reference samples from the iliac wing and proximal tibia, proximal ulna. This difference is statistically significant - P 0.0008 and 0.0002 (p <0.05). Thus, the difference in the concentration of red bone marrow is obvious. DISCUSSION The aforementioned results suggest that the greatest potential to heal will be achieved with the use of bone grafts from the iliac wing region, followed by greater trochanter of the femur, distal femur and proximal humerus. When testing the hypothesis by the ANOVA method, the detected differences between the selected harvest regions are not statistically significant. Therefore, the iliac wing grafts can be used in practice just as the material from greater trochanter of the femur, distal femur or proximal humerus, which is of equal quality. The other regions, proximal tibia and ulna, contain only minimum concentration of red bone marrow. CONCLUSIONS The experimental study comparing the concentration of red bone marrow in grafts harvested using a minimally invasive procedure from the region of greater trochanter, distal femur and proximal humerus concluded that these samples are comparable with the grafts from the iliac wing. The grafts harvested from proximal tibia and proximal ulna show only negligible concentration of red bone marrow and their use in clinical practice is disputable. The benefits of our experimental study for treatment shall be further evaluated in a clinical study. Key words: bone marrow, stem cells, bone healing/orthobiologics, new technology assessment, autograft harvesting.