Allograft-prosthesis Composite Research Articles

CORR Insights®: What Is the Revision-free Survival of Resurfaced Allograft-prosthesis Composites for Proximal Humerus Reconstruction in Children With Bone Tumors?

CORR Insights®: What Is the Revision-free Survival of Resurfaced Allograft-prosthesis Composites for Proximal Humerus Reconstruction in Children With Bone Tumors?

Intercalary Resection of the Tibia for Primary Bone Tumors: Are Vascularized Fibula Autografts With or Without Allografts a Durable Reconstruction?

Intercalary Resection of the Tibia for Primary Bone Tumors: Are Vascularized Fibula Autografts With or Without Allografts a Durable Reconstruction?

Endoprosthesis vs. nail-cement spacer application for reconstruction after oncologic proximal humeral resection: is there a difference in functional outcome?

The proximal humerus is a common site for primary malignant and benign aggressive bone tumors, necessitating wide resection and subsequent skeletal defect reconstruction. Various reconstruction options include osteoarticular allografts, autografts, endoprosthesis, nail-cement spacer, reverse shoulder arthroplasty, and allograft-prosthesis composites. However, there is no consensus on the optimal reconstruction method. This study aims to compare functional outcomes and complications between these two methods. A total of 40 patients with proximal humerus tumors who underwent endoprosthesis or nail-cement spacer reconstruction between March 2012 and December 2020 were included. The mean follow-up in the study was 31.37+/- 12 months. Demographic and clinical data were collected, and functional outcomes were assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society 93 scoring system and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire. Complications and oncological outcomes were recorded. Both groups were similar in terms of demographic and clinical variables. Endoprosthesis reconstruction demonstrated significantly better active shoulder forward flexion compared to nail-cement spacer (45.8 vs. 25.2 degrees) (P=.015). Endoprosthesis group also exhibited greater active shoulder internal rotation (68.25 vs. 63.25 degrees) (P=.004). No statistically significant differences were observed in overall functional outcomes. Complications, including radial nerve palsy and infection, were comparable between groups, with one case of spacer loosening. Both endoprosthesis and nail-cement spacer reconstruction provide comparable functional outcomes and complication rates following proximal humerus tumor resection. Nail-cement spacer offers a cost-effective alternative for patients in resource-constrained settings.

Similar complications, implant survival, and function following modular prosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions of the proximal femur for primary bone tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is a lack of consensus regarding the best type of reconstruction of the proximal femur following bone tumor resection. The objective of this study was to analyze the complication risks, implant survival, and functional outcomes following modular prosthesis (MP) and allograft-prosthesis composite (APC) reconstruction of the proximal femur after primary bone tumor resections. We performed a search in the PubMed and Scopus libraries, obtaining 1 843 studies. We included studies reporting functional outcomes, complications, and implant survival of proximal femur reconstruction with MP or APC following primary bone tumor resection with a 2-year minimum follow-up. We excluded studies analyzing metastatic patients or studies with pooled data in which it was impossible to separate the data of patients with primary bone tumors from those with bone metastases. We analyzed 18 studies (483 patients) reporting on 234 (48%) patients with MP reconstruction and 249 (52%) patients with APC reconstruction. The risk of complications was similar in patients with MP reconstruction (29%; 95% CI [0.11; 0.47]) and APC reconstruction (36%; 95% CI [0.24; 0.47]) (p = 0.48). Implant survival following MP reconstruction ranged from 81 to 86% at 5years, 75 to 86% at 10years, and 82% at 15years. Implant survival following APC reconstruction ranged from 86 to 100% at 5years and 86% at 10years, and 86% at 15years. Functional outcomes following MP reconstruction and APC reconstruction ranged from 24.0 to 28.3 and from 21.9 to 27.8, respectively. Patients with primary bone tumor of the proximal femur who underwent MP or APC reconstruction seem to have similar complication risks, implant survival, and functional outcomes.

What Is the Revision-free Survival of Resurfaced Allograft-prosthesis Composites for Proximal Humerus Reconstruction in Children With Bone Tumors?

What Is the Revision-free Survival of Resurfaced Allograft-prosthesis Composites for Proximal Humerus Reconstruction in Children With Bone Tumors?

Restoring Functionality: Humeroradial Total Elbow Revision for Salvaging Total Elbow Arthroplasty Failure and Ulnar Bone Loss.

As the number of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) continues to increase worldwide, one might predict the number of revision TEA would rise as well. The most common indications for revision TEA include (a) loosening, (b) infection, and (c) periprosthetic fracture. Although the rate of revision TEA procedures continues to rise due to the infrequency in which they are performed compared to other arthroplasty surgeries, no gold standard algorithm or procedure for managing severe ulnar bone loss in revision TEA has been determined. Various surgical techniques and strategies including allograft-prosthesis composite, custom long prosthesis with or without allograft, and resection arthroplasty have all been employed in attempting to address severe ulnar bone loss in revision TEA. Though the reported outcomes are mixed at best between each treatment strategy with similar complication rates. Another option is implanting the ulnar component into the radius. In those patients with severe ulnar bone loss, a humeroradial TEA revision can provide stability, restore range of motion, and provide pain relief.

Long-term effectiveness of uncemented allograft-prosthesis composite for reconstruction of bone defects after proximal femur tumor resection

To investigate the long-term effectiveness of uncemented allograft-prosthesis composite (APC) for reconstruction of bone defects after proximal femur tumor resection. Between June 2007 and March 2014, 21 patients who underwent uncemented APC reconstruction of proximal femur after tumor resection were retrospectively evaluated. There were 9 males and 12 females with an average age of 33.2 years (range, 19-54 years). There were 9 cases of giant cell tumor of bone, 5 cases of osteosarcoma, 4 cases of osteoblastic osteosarcoma, 2 cases of chondrosarcoma, and 1 case of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Thirteen cases of benign bone tumors were all classified as stage 3 by Enneking staging; and 8 cases of malignant bone tumors were classified as grade ⅡB in 7 cases and grade ⅡA in 1 case according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system. Among them, 7 patients underwent reoperation after recurrence, and the rest were primary operations; 8 patients presented with pathological fractures. The preoperative Harris hip score (HHS) and American Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 40 (30, 49) and 9.1±3.5, respectively. The length of osteotomy was 80-154 mm, with an average of 110 mm. At 1 year after operation and last follow-up, HHS and MSTS scores were utilized to evaluate the function of hip joint; the gluteus medius strength score was used to evaluation of the hip abduction function. Image examinations were taken at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after operation and every year thereafter to assess the union of allograft-host bone interfaces. Intra- and post-operative complications were also recorded. All patients were followed up 84-163 months (mean, 123.5 months). At 1 year after operation and last follow-up, the HHS and MSTS scores significantly improved when compared with the preoperative scores ( P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the HHS score, MSTS score, and gluteus medius strength score between the two time points after operation ( P>0.05). Image examination showed that all allograft-host bone interfaces achieved union after 5-10 months (mean, 7.6 months). At last follow-up, all patients had bone resorption, including 11 severe cases, 4 moderate cases, and 6 mild cases; the bone resorption sites included Gruen 1, 2, and 7 regions. Complications included 10 fractures and 1 prosthetic fracture. Local recurrence occurred in 3 patients and pulmonary metastasis in 3 patients. Uncemented APC is a reliable method for the reconstruction of bone defects after proximal femur tumor resection. It has the good long-term effectiveness and possesses obvious advantages in the union at the bone-bone surface.

Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC) for Proximal Humeral Bone Loss: Outcomes and Perspectives.

(1) Background: Allograft prosthetic composite (APC) represents one of the techniques used for reconstruction in large proximal humeral bone deficits. The present systematic review aimed at summarizing the state of the art of the technique and analyzing its outcomes. (2) Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed to perform this systematic review. A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. All the studies analyzing the rates of allograft prosthesis composite were pooled, and the data were extracted and analyzed. (3) Results: A total of 10 studies were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review for a total of 239 patients. The rate of patient satisfaction with surgery was reported in 7 studies with a mean of 86.4% ± 13.64. The mean constant score was 45.7 ± 3.51, the mean ASES score was 63.58 ± 8.37, and the mean SST was 4.6 ± 1.04. The mean revision rate observed was 10.32% ± 3.63 and the mean implant survival was 83.66% ± 14.98. (4) Conclusions: Based on the currently available data, allograft prosthesis composite represents a valuable option for the reconstruction of proximal humeral deficits. All studies analyzed showed the favorable impact of this surgical technique on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

KNEE PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURES IN THE ELDERLY: CURRENT CONCEPT.

Periprosthetic fractures around total knee arthroplasty in elderly represent an emerging cause of implant revision and their incidence seems destined to further increase in the upcoming years, considering the ever-increasing number of implanted prostheses. These are complex injuries with very high complication rates. It has been estimated that the incidence of femoral periprosthetic fractures after T.K.A. ranged between 0,3 to 2,5%, but increases up to 38% when considering revision T.K.A. Patient-related risk factors for T.K.A. periprosthetic fracture (T.K.A.P.F.) include osteoporosis, age, female sex, revision arthroplasty and peri-implant osteolysis. The grate debate concerns the choice of the most appropriate fixation device for T.K.A.P.F.: closed or open reduction with internal fixation with either locked plate or intramedullary nail is the most commonly used for treating these fractures. Success of these methods depends on the fracture pattern, the stability of implants, and the patient's bone quality which is often poor in elderly, thus resulting in high complication rates. Conversely, a revision of T.K.A. (R.T.K.A.) should be considered in case of prosthetic component instability, severe comminution or metaphyseal extension of the fracture (that precludes a good fixation), previous treatments failure and severe malalignment of T.K.A. Instead megaprosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite are necessary in case of sever bone loss. Considering the variability of the clinical scenario of T.K.A.P.F., this complex injury requires and experienced and comprehensive approach based on both facture fixation and/or revision arthroplasty.

Does reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with allograft-prosthesis composite (APC) have surgical benefits over hemiarthroplasty with APC in patients with tumors of the proximal humerus?

The research on surgical outcomes of hemiarthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using allograft-prosthesis composites for the proximal humeral oncologic condition is still scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to compare surgical outcomes of shoulder joint reconstruction with hemiarthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using allograft-prosthesis composites for tumors of the proximal humerus. Eleven patients underwent hemiarthroplasty or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using allograft-prosthesis composites for tumors of the proximal humerus between July 2011 and April 2018 were reviewed. Radiographic analysis for bone union of allograft-host bone junction, implant loosening, stress shielding and shoulder dislocation or subluxation was performed. Functional outcomes were evaluated using visual analog scales for pain, range of motion, Simple Shoulder Test score and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score. Furthermore, oncologic outcome and complications were also assessed, respectively. There were five patients with hemiarthroplasty (mean age, 23.2years) and six patients with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (mean age, 46.8years, P=0.05). Radiographically, there were no events associated with implant loosening, stress shielding and shoulder dislocation or subluxation in the two groups. There were no differences in functional outcomes between the two groups. There was no local recurrence in entire cohort. In the hemiarthroplasty group, one patient was required revision surgery to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at postoperative 6years due to rotator cuff dysfunction. In the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty group, one patient showed the fracture occurred at allograft-host bone junction at postoperative 6months. Surgical outcomes of hemiarthroplasty with allograft-prosthesis composites were not inferior to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty when applied in properly selected patients. The authors recommended that hemiarthroplasty with allograft-prosthesis composites could be used for young age patients without glenoid metastasis involvement, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with allograft-prosthesis composites could be used for patients with old age or metastatic bone tumors.

A comparison of osteoarticular allografts and allograft-prosthesis composites for reconstruction of the distal femur after resection of a bone tumour in childhood : a retrospective study.

Osteoarticular reconstruction of the distal femur in childhood has the advantage of preserving the tibial physis. However, due to the small size of the distal femur, matching the host bone with an osteoarticular allograft is challenging. In this study, we compared the outcomes and complications of a resurfaced allograft-prosthesis composite (rAPC) with those of an osteoarticular allograft to reconstruct the distal femur in children. A retrospective analysis of 33 skeletally immature children with a malignant tumour of the distal femur, who underwent resection and reconstruction with a rAPC (n = 15) or osteoarticular allograft (n = 18), was conducted. The median age of the patients was ten years (interquartile range (IQR) 9 to 11) in the osteoarticular allograft group and nine years (IQR 8 to 10) in the rAPC group (p = 0.781). The median follow-up of the patients was seven years (IQR 4 to 8) in the osteoarticular allograft group and six years (IQR 3 to 7) in the rAPC group (p = 0.483). Limb function was evaluated using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score. At final follow-up, the knee was unstable in 9/18 patients (50%) in the osteoarticular allograft group and 2/15 patients (13%) in the rAPC group (p = 0.026). The median range of motion (ROM) of the knee was 117° (IQR 115° to 120°) in the osteoarticular allograft group and 100° (IQR 95° to 105°) in the rAPC group (p < 0.001). The median MSTS score was 25 (IQR 23 to 26) in the osteoarticular allograft group and 28 (IQR 26 to 29) in the rAPC group (p = 0.007). Osteoarthritic change was detected in 11/18 patients (61%) in the osteoarticular allograft group and in 4/15 (26%) patients in the rAPC group (p = 0.048). In our series, a resurfaced allograft-prosthesis composite provided better knee stability and function, with a lower rate of osteoarthritis; an osteoarticular allograft was associated with better knee ROM.Cite this article: Bone Joint J2022;104-B(10):1174-1179.

Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia for oncological conditions.

AimsThe proximal tibia (PT) is the anatomical site most frequently affected by primary bone tumours after the distal femur. Reconstruction of the PT remains challenging because of the poor soft-tissue cover and the need to reconstruct the extensor mechanism. Reconstructive techniques include implantation of massive endoprosthesis (megaprosthesis), osteoarticular allografts (OAs), or allograft-prosthesis composites (APCs).MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of clinical data relating to patients who underwent proximal tibial arthroplasty in our regional bone tumour centre from 2010 to 2018.ResultsA total of 76 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Mean age at surgery was 43.2 years (12 to 86 (SD 21)). The mean follow-up period was 60.1 months (5.4 to 353). In total 21 failures were identified, giving an overall failure rate of 27.6%. Prosthesis survival at five years was 75.5%, and at ten years was 59%. At last follow-up, mean knee flexion was 89.8° (SD 36°) with a mean extensor lag of 18.1° (SD 24°). In univariate analysis, factors associated with better survival of the prosthesis were a malignant or metastatic cancer diagnosis (versus benign), with a five- and ten-year survival of 78.9% and 65.7% versus 37.5% (p = 0.045), while in-hospital length of stay longer than nine days was also associated with better prognosis with five- and ten-year survival rates at 84% and 84% versus 60% and 16% (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, only in-hospital length of stay was associated with longer survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.66).ConclusionWe have shown that proximal tibial arthroplasty with endoprosthesis is a safe and reliable method for reconstruction in patients treated for orthopaedic oncological conditions. Either modular or custom implants in this series performed well.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):733–740.

Impaction Bone Grafting for Severe Femoral Bone Loss: Surgical Technique in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

The specific steps to perform this procedure include (1) preoperative planning; (2) positioning of the patient and surgical approach; (3) cautious removal of the previous components; (4) preparation of the bone graft; (5) implantation of the appropriate IBG revision system, restoring bone loss from distal to proximal and utilizing metal mesh as needed; (6) implantation of the new stem, bypassing the defect; and (7) aftercare with protected weight-bearing in order to avoid subsidence of the stem and periprosthetic fracture. There are several alternatives to the IBG technique in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty with extensive femoral bone loss. These alternatives include distal cementless fixation (either modular or nonmodular), a megaprosthesis, or an allograft-prosthesis composite. The rationale for use of the IBG technique is restoration of bone stock. Although this issue may be irrelevant in low-demand elderly patients, we believe it is of the utmost importance among young (i.e., <60 years old) and active patients. This technique is versatile enough to be utilized in different scenarios such as periprosthetic fracture, periprosthetic joint infection (2-stage protocols), and aseptic loosening. We have reported favorable clinical and radiographic outcomes for the treatment of both aseptic and septic femoral component loosening. In all cases, we utilized vancomycin-supplemented impacted cancellous allograft without evidence of secondary effects with regard to bone incorporation, nephrotoxicity, or allergic reactions. Although it was initially contraindicated, we further extended the indication for this reconstruction alternative to cases of circumferential proximal bone loss with non-neoplastic bone defects of ≤15 cm, utilizing encompassing metal mesh and a bypassing long stem. Recently, we reported on poorer outcomes following IBG compared with the use of uncemented modular stems for the treatment of type B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures, with a significantly higher rate of infection and implant breakage for the former treatment. Nowadays, we advocate the use of this technique in young, active patients (i.e., <60 years old) with a femoral bone defect Paprosky grade IIIB or IV, in which reconstitution of bone stock is crucial to avoid an eventual implant failure in the long term. This technique requires an experienced team. This procedure should be avoided in the presence of active periprosthetic joint infection.The gluteus maximus tendon should be detached to avoid tensioning the sciatic nerve and to decrease the chance of periprosthetic femoral fracture.Massive bone loss can jeopardize correct implant orientation and restoration of biomechanics. In this scenario, surgeons might consider the intercondylar axis as a guide for femoral version.Try to avoid (if possible) trochanteric or extended trochanteric osteotomy because proximal bone stock is necessary to contain the bone grafts. In some cases, such as those in which the removal of the stem is difficult, especially with certain uncemented stem designs, an extended trochanteric osteotomy must be performed. Whether or not a cemented stem is removed, it is mandatory to remove all remaining cement in the femoral canal.Preoperative templating is a necessity to reconstruct leg length. Accurately determining the length of the mesh is the most important step to avoid shortening or overlengthening of the lower extremity.Approximately 10 cm of circumferential metal mesh should be fixed with 3 to 5 double cerclage metal wires to the remaining bone. The new femoral stem should bypass extend beyond the mesh for approximately 5 cm. If the stem does not bypass the mesh, there is an increased risk of postoperative fracture.In order to decrease the risk of intraoperative femoral fracture, the distal aspect of the femur should be secured with cerclage wires, and the proximal aspect of the femur should also be protected with cerclage wires over the mesh. As in any other complex femoral revision procedure, torsional forces in the supracondylar zone should be avoided, especially during trial or stem reduction maneuvers.Always utilize a bone graft mixed with antibiotic powder.Retrograde cementation must be done with cement that is in a more liquid state than in primary total hip arthroplasty. PO = postoperativePMMA = polymethyl methacrylateIV = intravenousLMWH = low molecular weight heparinDVT/EP = deep vein thrombosis and extended prophylaxis.

Total elbow arthroplasty for tumors of the distal humerus and elbow.

The elbow is a rare location for primary and metastatic tumors in the upper extremity. The goal of reconstruction is to provide painless motion and stability for hand function. Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is commonly utilized, with either off-the-self components, modular segmental endoprosthesis, or allograft-prosthesis composites (APC). The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare commonly utilized elbow reconstructions and report outcomes of (1) patient function and (2) implant survival and complications. We reviewed 33 patients (18 females and 15 males) undergoing elbow arthroplasty for reconstruction of an underlying oncologic process including linked TEA (n = 22, 67%), APC (n = 9, 27%), and endoprosthesis (n = 2, 6%). The most common indication was metastatic disease (n = 17, 52%), with 24 patients (73%) presenting with a pathologic fracture. Five-year implant survival was following elbow reconstruction was 88%. The mean most recent Mayo Elbow Performance Score and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score were 84 ± 18 and 78 ± 15%. Postoperative complications occurred in 15 elbows (45%), most commonly periprosthetic fracture (n = 5, 15%), leading to reoperation in six elbows (18%). Although elbow arthroplasty is associated with a high incidence of complications, it provides a stable platform for upper extremity function in patients with oncologic processes of the elbow.

Megaprosthesis Versus Allograft Prosthesis Composite for the Management of Massive Skeletal Defects: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.

Megaprosthesis and Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC) are the established treatment modalities for massive skeletal defects. There are a handful of studies comparing the use of megaprosthesis and APC in the management of substantial bone loss and it has always been a topic of debate regarding the superiority of one modality over the other. Therefore, we aim to compare the functional outcome and implant survivorship of each modality including complications, revision rates, amputation rate and mortality. The Allograft Prosthesis Composite (APC) constitutes a skeletal allograft implanted with a revision type prosthesis in it. The biological environment provided by the allograft allows attachment of the muscles and tendons imparting better stability and function. However, the literature is not kind enough with APC due to associated risk of infection, disease transmission and nonunion at the graft-host junction. The megaprosthesis (MP) on the other hand is a nonbiologic modality with better survivorship but subservient functional outcome. Infection has been a major issue in both the modalities. Advancement in metallurgy using silver coated megaprosthesis also failed to provide strong evidence in preventing infection. The functional outcome is better with APC in both the upper and lower limbs. However, the survivorship is better with megaprosthesis, especially in the upper limb when revision rates were compared between the two modalities. Deep infection and mechanical complications were significantly higher in the APC group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of amputation rate, mortality, and local recurrence. 2a.

Long-term results of uncemented allograft prosthesis composite reconstruction for the tumor in proximal femur: a minimum follow-up of sixty-five months

BackgroundUncemented allograft prosthesis composite (APC) has been applied for tumorous bone defect reconstruction in the proximal femur. However, the long-term results are rarely reported. This study aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes of uncemented APC.MethodsEighteen patients who received uncemented APC reconstruction in the proximal femur after tumor resections were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsThe average resection length was 110 mm (80–154) and the average follow-up was 106.7 months (65–141). Bone union achieved in all patients with an average duration of 7.6 months (5–10). The average HHS, MSTS score and gluteus medius strength at one-year follow-up were 88.0 (80–94), 25.2 (22–28) and 4 (3–5), respectively. While at the last follow-up, the HHS, MSTS score and gluteus medius strength were 83.0 (48–100), 24.0 (10–30) and 4 (2–5), respectively. Five intraoperative fractures were fixed with cerclage wires. Two postoperative periprosthetic and prosthetic fractures received a revision. Three local recurrent patients received a secondary surgery. One of these three lung metastatic patients underwent lung metastatic tumor resection. Another two patients were diagnosed with both bone and lung metastases, only one of them underwent amputation. Two greater trochanteric fractures received no treatment. There were10 severe, 3 moderate and 5 mild allograft resorptions without treatment.ConclusionUncemented APC is a reliable reconstruction for neoplastic bone defect of the proximal femur, especially for the young patient who expected long-life expectancy and good function. Though allograft resorption and trochanteric fracture are the common complications, they seem no effect on the function.

X-ray examination of bone density in allograft-prosthesis composite (іn vivo experiment)

Objective. To determine the most effective method of segmental bone allograft fixation during allograft — prosthesis composite based on searching the x-ray density of bone tissue at experimental animals. Methods. The work was performed on 28 laboratory white male rats (age 5 months, weight 350–400 g), which were divided into 2 groups, 14 animals in each group. All animals underwent allograft-prosthesis composite hip replacement: after transverse osteotomy of the femur in the 1st group of animals, after step cut osteotomy in the 2nd group. Animals were withdrawn from the experiment after 3 and 6 months after operation. The optical bone regenerate density in the contact of allograft and the recipient’s bone areas and the cortical layer of the recipient’s bone below the distal end of endoprosthesis were measured on Х-ray images. Results. Optical bone regenerate density after 3 and 6 months after operation had significant difference between recipient’s bone in both groups (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference (р = 0.373) of recipient’s bone density depending on using different osteotomy types on the cutoff date of the study (6 months). But bone regenerate got more density after step-cut osteotomy ((216 ± 26) units) which was significantly (p = 0.001) compare to transverse osteotomy ((161 ± 19) units). Conclusions. The using of long bone allograft-prosthesis composite with implementation a step cut osteotomy contributes to the most rapid increase in bone regenerate density than transverse osteotomy. This is due to the achievement of better stability during fixation of the bone allograft and the bone of the recipient due to the step cut osteotomy, which contributes to fast regenerative process.

Mucormycosis osteomyelitis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: treatment and outcomes of 21 reported cases.

AimsOur purpose was to describe an unusual series of 21 patients with fungal osteomyelitis after an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R).MethodsWe present a case-series of consecutive patients treated at our institution due to a severe fungal osteomyelitis after an arthroscopic ACL-R from November 2005 to March 2015. Patients were referred to our institution from different areas of our country. We evaluated the amount of bone resection required, type of final reconstructive procedure performed, and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) functional score.ResultsA total of 21 consecutive patients were included in the study; 19 were male with median age of 28 years (IQR 25 to 32). All ACL-R were performed with hamstrings autografts with different fixation techniques. An oncological-type debridement was needed to control persistent infection symptoms. There were no recurrences of fungal infection after median of four surgical debridements (IQR 3 to 6). Five patients underwent an extensive curettage due to the presence of large cavitary lesions and were reconstructed with hemicylindrical intercalary allografts (HIAs), preserving the epiphysis. An open surgical debridement was performed resecting the affected epiphysis in 15 patients, with a median bone loss of 11 cm (IQR 11.5 to 15.6). From these 15 cases, eight patients were reconstructed with allograft prosthesis composites (APC); six with tumour-type prosthesis (TTP) and one required a femoral TTP in combination with a tibial APC. One underwent an above-the-knee amputation. The median MSTS functional score was 20 points at a median of seven years (IQR 5 to 9) of follow-up.ConclusionThis study suggests that mucormycosis infection after an ACL-R is a serious complication. Diagnosis is usually delayed until major bone destructive lesions are present. This may originate additional massive reconstructive surgeries with severe functional limitations for the patients.Level of evidence: IVCite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;2(1):3–8.

Preliminary results of reconstruction of proximal humeral bone loss with a reverse total shoulder prosthesis using a modular endoprosthetic reconstruction system: a case series

Background: Osteoarticular allografts and allograft-prosthesis composites have decreased some complications but have introduced others, prompting development of implants that combine a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) prosthesis with a modular endoprosthetic reconstruction system. Methods: Data were collected prospectively from two institutions for all patients with massive proximal humeral bone loss who had reconstruction with RTSA using a single modular endoprosthetic system. The primary outcome measure was failure of the reconstruction, defined as need for revision surgery or radiographic evidence of component failure. Preoperative and postoperative functional outcomes and patient-reported outcomes, determined through preoperative and postoperative Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (quickDASH) scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) scores, and visual analog scores (VAS), were compared. Results: Seven female and five male patients met inclusion criteria. The most common reason for proximal bone loss was failure of a previous arthroplasty procedure (six patients). Average forward flexion and internal rotation improved significantly, as did the average quickDASH, ASES and VAS scores. Failure of humeral component fixation occurred in three patients. Conclusions: Early results show that a RTSA prosthesis using a modular endoprosthetic reconstruction system is a viable option for massive proximal humeral bone loss. Further studies are needed to investigate longevity and longer-term outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

The challenge of total knee arthroplasty periprosthetic fracture: a comprehensive review

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common procedure in orthopeadic surgery. It has been estimated that the incidence of periprosthetic fractures after TKA ranged between 0.3 to 2.5%, but increases to 38% when considering revision TKA.Patient-related risk factors for TKA periprosthetic fracture (TKAPF) include osteoporosis, age, female gender, revision arthroplasty and osteolysis. The choice of the most appropriate fixation device of TKAPF is a matter of debate, considering that locking plates and retrograde intramedullary are both associated with good outcomes in terms of fracture union and joint function.In case of prosthetic component instability, severe comminution or metaphyseal extension of the fracture that precludes fixation, failure of previous treatments, and severe malalignment of the TKA, revision TKA (RTKA) should be considered. Severe bone loss is another issue of concern, that might be addressed using both megaprosthesis or allograft-prosthesis composite. Considering the variability of the clinical scenario of TKAPF, a comprehensive approach based on both fracture fixation and/or revision arthroplashty is needed.