Proximal Femoral Replacement Research Articles

Contemporary Outcomes of Proximal Femoral Replacement as a Salvage Treatment in Nononcologic Severe Bone Loss

Contemporary Outcomes of Proximal Femoral Replacement as a Salvage Treatment in Nononcologic Severe Bone Loss

Comparison of cost and complications of primary total hip arthroplasty versus oncologic proximal femur replacement

Aims and objectiveProximal femur replacement (PFR) is most commonly performed after a large resection of the proximal femur to remove tumor and is known to have high complication rates and worse function than a primary total hip replacement (THA). Many surgeons feel that current billing practices fail to adequately differentiate this procedure from a THA. This study aims to examine patients undergoing a primary THA or oncologic PFR and compare the relative economic impact and complication rates between cohorts. Materials & methodsPatient data was queried using a national database, identifying non-pediatric patients who underwent a primary THA or oncologic PFR. Exclusionary criteria were implemented, resulting in two cohorts, each with 380 patients matched in a 1:1 manner controlling for age, gender, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Utilizing 2022 billing data, oncologic PFRs generated an average of 41.03 RVUs and primary THAs generated 19.60 RVUs. Total hospital cost was used to generate a cost:RVU ratio for each cohort. Key systemic and joint complication rates were additionally compared between cohorts. ResultsThe oncologic PFR cohort had significantly higher 90-day rates of anemia, deep vein thrombosis, and prosthetic dislocation compared to the primary THA cohort. The 90-day median hospital cost for oncologic PFR was $28,562.21 with a cost:RVU ratio of $696:1. The corresponding median hospital cost for primary THA was $9667.72, with a cost:RVU ratio of $493:1. ConclusionHospitals incur more cost per RVU for an oncologic PFR than a primary THA. Relative to primary THA, reimbursement for oncologic PFR is under-evaluated.

What Abductor Repair Technique Provides the Best Functional Outcomes after Proximal Femur Endoprosthetic Reconstruction for Oncologic Indications? A Systematic Review

There is conflicting data regarding the optimal abductor mechanism (AM) repair technique after resection of proximal femur tumors. We sought to compare functional outcomes following tumor resection and reconstruction with proximal femoral replacement based on the AM repair technique utilized. We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We established two study groups based on AM repair technique as follows: soft-tissue reattachment (STr) and greater trochanter preservation (GTp). In the STr group, the gluteus medius and minimus muscles were reattached to the endoprosthesis, whereas in the GTp group, the greater trochanter and gluteal tendons were preserved. The STr group was further subdivided into direct and indirect reattachments. Weighted means adjusting for sample size were calculated. A total of 658 patients from 12 articles were included. Patients who had STr displayed higher Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores (75 versus 67.3%, P < 0.001), lower rates of Trendelenburg gait (33.9 versus 52.4%, P < 0.01), and ambulation with assistive devices (30.4 versus 54.9%, P < 0.001) compared to the GTp group. Within the STr group, indirect reattachment was associated with higher Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores (87.2 versus 70.1%, P < 0.001) and lower rates of Trendelenburg gait (3.8 versus 36.3%, P < 0.001) and ambulation with assistive devices (0 versus 42.4%, P < 0.001) compared to direct reattachment. The reattachment hardware failure rate in GTp was 15%. A STr provided superior functional outcomes compared to GTp in tumor-related proximal femoral replacement. From a functional outcome perspective, the use of indirect STr was better compared to direct STr. III.

ABDUCTOR RECONSTRUCTION WITH VASTUS LATERALIS TO GLUTEUS MEDIUS TRANSFER

Few surgical techniques to reconstruct the abductor mechanism of the hip have been reported, with outcomes reported only from case reports and small case series from the centres that described the techniques. As in many of our revision THA patients the gluteus maximus was affected by previous repeat posterior approaches, we opted to reconstruct the abductor mechanism using a vastus lateralis to gluteus medius transfer.We report the results of such reconstructions in seven patients, mean age 66 (range, 53–77), five females, presenting with severe abductor deficiency (MRC grade 1–2). Five patients had previous revision THA, two with a proximal femoral replacement, one patient had a primary THA after a failed malunited trochanteric fracture, and one patient had a native hip with idiopathic fatty infiltration of glutei of &gt;90%. All patients had instrumented gait analysis, and surface electromyography (EMG) of the glutei, TFL, and vastus muscles simultaneously before surgery and at each post-op follow-up. Postoperatively, patients were allowed to weight bear as tolerated and were requested to wear an abduction brace for the first six weeks after surgery to protect the transfer.All patients improved after surgery and reached an abductor power of 3 or more. All patients walked without support six months after surgery and were satisfied with the result. Abductor function continued to improve beyond one year of follow-up, and some patients reached an abductor power of 5. EMG demonstrated that the transferred vastus lateralis started firing synchronously with gluteus medius after three months post-surgery, suggesting adaptation to its new function. No knee extension weakness was recorded. One patient complained of lateral thigh numbness and was dissatisfied with the cosmetic look of her thigh after surgery.Our preliminary results are encouraging and comparable with those achieved by the originators of the technique.

Progression of Femoral Osteolytic Metastases after Intramedullary Nailing and Subsequent Salvage Techniques.

Intramedullary nailing insertion from the proximal-to-distal femur is frequently performed for impending and complete pathological femur fractures due to osteolytic metastases. After nailing through cancer-laden bone, residual chemotherapy- and/or radiation-resistant tumor may progress. Progression of osteolysis risks future nail failure or pathological fractures. This study assesses the incidence of cancer progression following intramedullary nailing in a femur-only cohort and describes a percutaneous rod-retaining salvage technique. A single-institution, retrospective study was conducted to identify adult patients who underwent intramedullary nailing for femoral osteolytic lesions for complete or impending nail failure from 2016 to 2023. Progression was defined as enlargement of the pre-existing lesion and/or appearance of new lesions on radiographs. Surgical outcomes were assessed with a combined pain and functional score. A total of 113 patients (median age 66.8 years (IQR = 16.4); median follow-up 6.0 months (IQR = 14.5)) underwent intramedullary nailing. Sixteen patients (14.2%) exhibited post-nailing cancer progression. Pre- and postoperative radiation and chemotherapy did not decrease the odds of cancer progression. Three patients underwent initial open surgical salvage consisting of proximal femur replacement arthroplasty, and six patients did not receive salvage due to poor surgical candidacy or patient choice. Seven patients (median follow-up 10.7 months (IQR = 12.9)) received percutaneous salvage. In this group, pain and functional scores improved by 4.0 points (p = 0.0078) at two-week postoperative follow-up and 2.0 points (p = 0.0312) at the most recent follow-up (mean follow-up 13.0 ± 9.4 months). All three nonambulatory patients became ambulatory, and six patients were able to ambulate independently without walking aids. No major complications were reported 30 days postoperatively. Progression of femoral osteolytic metastases may occur following intramedullary nailing. Continued monitoring of the entire femur is needed to maintain improved functional status and to prevent catastrophic progression of pre-existing lesions or appearance of new lesions. In patients with more proximal metastases only, the customary practice of bringing a long nail from the proximal femur to distal metaphysis should be reconsidered. Furthermore, there is concern of mechanical transport of cancer cells during guide wire insertion, reaming, and rod insertion through cancer laden bone to cancer free distal bone.

A comparison of dislocation risk between dual mobility and traditional constructs used in proximal femoral replacement

BackgroundProximal femoral replacement (PFR) is a reconstruction technique after tumor resection or for revision of failed total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, despite acceptable long-term oncologic and functional outcomes, extensive soft tissue or bone loss increases the risk for prosthetic instability. Instability may depend on the construct chosen for reconstruction, with current options including bipolar, constrained, or dual mobility implants. Clinical studies comparing patient outcomes after PFR with these three different constructs are limited. MethodsThis study retrospectively examined a single tertiary academic institution's experience with PFR over a fifteen-year period. The medical records of patients who underwent PFR for indications such as tumor and failed THA with bone loss were reviewed. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on use of bipolar, constrained, or dual mobility implants. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, perioperative data, and data on prosthetic dislocations were recorded. ANOVA and chi-square testing was performed for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The threshold for statistical significance was set to p < 0.05. Results106 patients were identified who underwent PFR. 46 underwent PFR with bipolar prosthesis (follow-up: 20 ± 24.57 months), 42 with constrained liner (follow-up: 30.45 ± 35.32 months), and 18 with dual mobility (follow-up: 15.38 ± 15.67 months). Only BMI (p = 0.036) and smoking history (P = 0.002) differed between groups. Dislocations occurred in 4 (8.7 %) patients who underwent reconstruction with bipolar prosthesis, compared to 8 (19.0 %) with constrained liner, and 3 (16.7 %) patients with dual mobility. Mean time to dislocation was significantly longer in dual mobility patients (P = 0.009). There were no differences in instances of early dislocation between groups (P = 00.238). ConclusionWhile study numbers are low, mean time to dislocation was significantly longer with dual mobility. Additional large-scale longitudinal studies are needed to fully elucidate the differences in outcomes amongst these three treatments.

The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) after proximal and distal femoral replacement

IntroductionFemoral megaprostheses are used for bone reconstruction surgery in patients with local tumors or who require multiple revisions. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a subjective result and, like patient satisfaction, have become an integral part of the outcomes in orthopedics. However, the threshold of satisfaction (PASS: Patient Acceptable Symptom State) has not yet been defined in a French population after this type of arthroplasty. This led us to carry out a retrospective study on a population of patients who received a femoral reconstruction megaprosthesis in order to 1) define the PASS for the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Knee Society Score (KSS) and the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score (MSTS), 2) study the complications. HypothesisThe PASS threshold for proximal femur and distal femur reconstruction prothesis for the HHS and the KSS, respectively, will be lower than the threshold for these same scores for primary arthroplasty. Materials and methodsForty-four patients who were operated on between 2009 and 2020 were included: 23 received a proximal femur prosthesis and 21 received a distal femur prosthesis. The PASS threshold was defined using an anchoring strategy by analyzing ROC curves for the HSS for the proximal femur, KSS for the distal femur and the MSTS for all the prostheses. Complications were classified according to Henderson. ResultsThe mean follow-up was 4.5 ± 3.6 (1–12.5) years. The PASS threshold was 47.5 (area under curve (AUC) 0.71 (0.45–0.97)) for the HHS, 69.5 (AUC 0.97 (0.92–1.0)) for the KSS knee and 62.5 (AUC 0.81 (0.61–0.99)) for the KSS function. Thirteen patients (29%) had complications, nine of whom required another surgery (20%). The most frequent were Henderson type 1 (soft tissue lesions, n = 5/44 [11%]) and type 2 (loosening, n = 5/44 [11%]) There was no relationship between satisfaction and postoperative complications (p = 0.071). DiscussionMost of the patients who undergo femoral resection and reconstruction (59%) are satisfied with their function, albeit reduced, despite a high complication rate (29%). Our hypothesis is confirmed for the PASS threshold for the HHS (47.5 versus 93) and the KSS knee and function (69.5 and 62.5 versus 85.5 and 72.5). Level of evidenceIV; retrospective observational single-center study.

Management of Severe Bone Defects in Femoral Revision following Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Treatment of femoral bone defects continues to be a challenge in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA); therefore, meticulous preoperative evaluation of patients and surgical planning are required. This review provides a concise synopsis of the etiology, classification, treatment strategy, and prosthesis selection in relation to femoral bone loss in revision THA. A search of literature was conducted for identification of research articles related to classification of bone loss, management of femoral revision, and comparison of different types of stems. Findings of a thorough review of the included articles were as follows: (1) the Paprosky classification system is used most often when defining femoral bone loss, (2) a primary-length fully coated monoblock femoral component is recommended for treatment of types I or II bone defects, (3) use of an extensively porouscoated stem and a modular fluted tapered stem is recommended for management of types III or IV bone defects, and (4) use of an impaction grafting technique is another option for improvement of bone stock, and allograft prosthesis composite and proximal femoral replacement can be applied by experienced surgeons, in selected cases, as a final salvage solution. Stems with a tapered design are gradually replacing components with a cylindrical design as the first choice for femoral revision; however, further confirmation regarding the advantages and disadvantages of modular and nonmodular stems will be required through conduct of higher-level comparative studies.

High Rate of Unplanned Reoperation for Interprosthetic Femur Fractures After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundInterprosthetic femur fractures (IPFFs) are a rare, but devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty. There is limited evidence to help guide their management. The purpose of this study was to describe the features, treatment, and outcomes of surgically managed IPFFs. MethodsWe retrospectively identified 75 patients who had 76 IPFFs. The mean age at the time of IPFF was 75 years (range, 29 to 94), and 78% were women. The mean body mass index was 30 (range, 19 to 51), and the mean follow-up was 3 years (range, 0 to 14). There were 16 Vancouver B1 fractures, 28 Vancouver B2 fractures, 2 Vancouver B3 fractures, and 30 Vancouver C fractures. All B1 fractures underwent open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). All Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures underwent revision arthroplasty, including 1 proximal femur replacement and 1 total femur replacement. Vancouver C fractures were treated with ORIF (n = 20), distal femoral replacement (n = 9), and in 1 case, total femur replacement (n = 1). Kaplan-Meier survivorship was used to calculate 2-year survival free from all-cause reoperation and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). ResultsThe 2-year survivorship-free rate from reoperation was 71%. There were 18 reoperations following initial surgical management of the IPFF, including 9 for infection, 3 for refracture, 3 for nonunion, 2 for hardware failure, and 1 for instability. An initial IPFF involving a stemmed femoral total knee arthroplasty component was associated with increased risk for reoperation (P = .007) and PJI (P = .044). There was no difference in survivorship free of reoperation between IPFFs managed with ORIF or revision arthroplasty (P = .72). ConclusionsAn IPFF is a devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty with high reoperation rates, most commonly secondary to PJI. Those IPFFs that occurred between 2 stemmed components were at the highest risk for reoperation.

Unusual soft tissue metastases in a patient with chondrosarcoma: a case report.

Chondrosarcoma (CS) is the second most frequent primary malignant bone tumour, characterized by production of non-osteoid cartilage matrix. Up to more than 30% of patients with CS present distant metastases, and the lungs represent the preferred site. Hence, CS soft tissue metastases and superficial cutaneous lesions are extremely rare. We report the case of a female who developed unusual multiple soft tissue CS metastases. This patient underwent left hindquarter amputation for recurrent grade 3 chondrosarcoma of the femoral neck with extension to the pelvis approximately 4years after internal fixation with an intramedullary nail for pathological fracture of left proximal femur and subsequent total proximal femoral endoprosthetic replacement for grade 1-2 chondrosarcoma. In the following years, she underwent metastasectomy for several grade 2 pulmonary metastatic chondrosarcomas. More than 14years after the amputation, she presented with multiple unusual superficial cutaneous lesions, and a whole-body magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated multiple soft tissue foci of metastatic disease. The histology of multiple soft tissue lesions excised confirmed metastatic chondrosarcoma. Then, she underwent marginal excision of further multifocal soft tissue metastatic high-grade chondrosarcoma. Unlike the poor survival from the onset of these metastases in the other cases reported in the literature, our patient is still alive 2years after the first multiple soft tissue excision of metastatic chondrosarcoma, and approximately 20years after the diagnosis of chondrosarcoma. Soft tissue CS metastases are a rare entity with few cases described in literature. This study aims to make the reader aware of this lesser-known CS manifestation.

Incidence and management of secondary deformities after megaendoprosthetic proximal femur replacement in skeletally immature bone sarcoma patients

IntroductionMegaendoprosthetic reconstruction of bone defects in skeletally immature patients has led to the development of unique complications and secondary deformities not observed in adult patient cohorts. With an increasing number of megaendoprosthetic replacements performed, orthopedic oncologists still gain experience in the incidence and type of secondary deformities caused. In this study, we report the incidence, probable cause and management outcome of two secondary deformities after megaendoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur: hip dysplasia and genu valgum.Materials and methodsRetrospective analysis of 14 patients who underwent primary and/or repeat reconstruction/surgery with a megaendoprosthetic proximal femur replacement between 2018 and 2022.ResultsMean patient age was 9.1 years (range 4–17 years). Stress shielding was observed in 71.4%. Hip dislocation was the most frequent complication (50%). While four dislocations occurred without an underlying deformity, secondary hip dysplasia was identified in 58.3% (n = 7/12) of intraarticular resections and reconstructions, leading to dislocation in 71.4% (n = 5/7). A genu valgum deformity was observed in 41.6% (n = 5/12). The incidence of secondary hip dysplasia and concomitant genu valgum was 42.9% (n = 3/7). Triple pelvic osteotomy led to rebound hip dysplasia in two cases (patients aged < 10 years), whereas acetabular socket replacement led to stable hip joints over the course of follow-up. Temporary hemiepiphyseodesis was applied to address secondary genu valgum.ConclusionsPatients aged < 10 years were prone to develop secondary hip dysplasia and genu valgum following proximal femur replacement in this study. Management of secondary deformities should depend on remaining skeletal growth. Stress shielding was observed in almost all skeletally immature patients.

ACHIEVING DISTAL FIXATION AND EARLY MOBILIZATION IN PATIENTS WITH SEVERE FEMORAL BONE LOSS USING AN INTERNAL PROXIMAL FEMORAL REPLACEMENT PROSTHESIS

The management of femoral bone loss is challenging during revision hip arthroplasty. In patients with Paprosky grade IIIB and IV defects, obtaining fixation and rotational stability using traditional surgical constructs is difficult. The use of a custom-made internal proximal femoral replacement prostheses has been proposed as a solution in patients, with severe femoral bone stock loss. However, there is a paucity in the literature on their use and long-term outcomes. We report on the clinical and radiological results of our cohort.We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent internal proximal femoral replacement for revision hip arthroplasty between April 1996 and April 2019. All patients had at least 2 years of follow-up time.160 patients underwent limb salvage at our institution using internal proximal femoral replacement. The mean follow-up was 79.7 months (S.D 41.3). Indications for revision included periprosthetic fractures, aseptic loosening, and deep infection. The mean Oxford hip score increased from 13.8 (0–22) to 31.5 (18–43) (paired t-test, p &lt; 0.001). Kaplan-Meier prosthesis survival analysis with revision as the endpoint was 87% at 5 years. None required revision of the femoral stem. There were four dislocations (5%) and there was failure to eradicate the deep infection in four.This technique allows instant distal fixation, allowing for early mobilisation. Long-term clinical and radiological outcomes are encouraging and the complication rates are acceptable for this patient group.

Techniques for abductor reattachment in proximal femoral replacement for non-oncological reconstructions: a narrative review.

Proximal femoral replacement due to revision hip arthroplasty or catastrophic proximal femur fracture fixation failures with considerable proximal femur bone loss can lead to a substantial loss of function of the soft tissue around the hip and the abductor muscles in particular. Surgical techniques of gluteus medius repair and/or abductor mechanism reattachment/reconstruction are widely debated in the literature, but it is quite rarely dealt with in the context of megaprosthesis and femoral reconstruction, particularly in non-oncologic patients. The aim of this study is to present a narrative review of the literature on techniques for abductor reattachment in proximal femoral replacement for non-oncological reconstructions. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched by two researchers independently from inception until February 1st, 2023 (923 for MEDLINE and 963 for Embase; Cochrane is a composite of multiple databases and thus does not report a standard inception date). Articles examining proximal femoral reconstruction with megaprosthesis or allograft prosthesis were included. Studies concerning cadaver and oncologic patients were excluded. If the researchers failed to find an agreement on whether to include a study, the senior researcher would make a final decision in such cases. Data were extracted and stored, and qualitative synthesis was performed. A total of 1,157 articles from MEDLINE, 11,187 articles from Embase, and 0 articles from Cochrane were identified. Of 12,344 articles, the structured screening process revealed 10 eligible trials. Four different types of abductor musculature reconstruction/reinsertion were identified. Multiple and complex revision hip arthroplasties as well as multiple surgical procedures for proximal femur fracture fixations failures may have a great impact on proximal femur bone stock condition and soft tissue preservation requiring the use of a proximal femur megaprosthesis. In such cases, the abductor mechanism reconstruction and/or reattachment is achievable with different techniques that can be resumed in four different groups: direct suture to the prosthesis, trochanteric sleeve osteotomy, muscle-to-muscle suture, and synthetic tube augmentation suture.

Hip Arthroplasty Outcomes in Patients with Metastatic Bone Disease.

The hip is a common location for metastatic bone disease (MBD) and surgical intervention is often indicated to relieve pain and improve function. MBD of the hip is usually treated with hemiarthroplasty or with total hip arthroplasty if there are acetabular lesions. As treatment for metastatic disease evolves and patients may expect to live longer after diagnosis, further evaluation of the complications and functional outcomes associated with hip arthroplasty for MBD are necessary. This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent hip arthroplasty for MBD at a single institution between 2007 and 2021. Outcomes included rates of reoperation, complications, and overall survival. Ninety-three cases in 91 patients were included. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) was performed in 52 cases (55.9%), hemiarthroplasty in 15 (16.1%), and complex arthroplasty, including proximal femur replacement or THA with complex acetabular reconstruction, was performed in 26 (28%). There were 11 reoperations in five patients and six dislocations. Median survival was 10.4 months and one-year overall survival was 53.3%. There was a significant increase in the proportion of patients who were able to ambulate independently (35.2% vs 17.6%; p=0.02) and a significant decrease in patients confined to a wheelchair (18.7% vs 3.3%; p=0.045) after surgery. Hip arthroplasty for MBD leads to relatively low rates of complications and reoperations in this population known to have high postoperative morbidity and mortality. Hip arthroplasty provides the majority of MBD patients with a durable reconstruction that exceeds their lifespan and enables them to return to an acceptable level of function.

Oncology

The February 2024 Oncology Roundup360 looks at: Does primary tumour resection improve survival for patients with sarcomas of the pelvis with metastasis at diagnosis?; Proximal femur replacements for an oncologic indication offer a durable endoprosthetic reconstruction option: a 40-year experience; The importance of awaiting biopsy results in solitary pathological proximal femoral fractures: do we need to biopsy solitary pathological fractures?; Effect of radiotherapy on local recurrence, distant metastasis, and overall survival in 1,200 extremity soft-tissue sarcoma patients; What to choose in bone tumour resections? Patient-specific instrumentation versus surgical navigation; Optimal timing of re-excision in synovial sarcoma patients: immediate intervention versus waiting for local recurrence; Survival differences of patients with resected extraskeletal osteosarcoma receiving two different (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy regimens; Solitary versus multiple bone metastases in the appendicular skeleton: should the surgical treatment be different?.

Larger stem to bone diameter ratio predicts lower cemented endoprosthesis failure.

With continued advances in treatment options, patients with endoprosthetic reconstruction are living longer and consequently relying upon their devices for a longer duration. Major causes of endoprosthesis failure include aseptic loosening and mechanical failure. In the setting of tumor resection, loss of bone stock and use of radiation therapy increase the risk for these complications. As such, considerations of remaining native bone and stem length and diameter may be increasingly important. We asked the following questions: (1) What was the overall rate of endoprosthesis failure at a minimum of 5-year follow-up? (2) Does resection length increase implant failure rates? (3) Does implant size and its ratio to cortical width of bone alter implant failure rates? We retrospectively analyzed patient outcomes at a single institution between the years of 1999-2022 who underwent cemented endoprosthetic reconstruction at the hip or knee and identified 150 patients. Of these 150, 55had a follow-up of greater than 5 years and were used for analysis. Radiographs of these patients at time of surgery were assessed and measured for resection length, bone diameter, stem diameter, and remaining bone length. Resection percentage, and stem to bone diameter ratios were then calculated and their relationship to endoprosthesis failure were analyzed. Patients in this cohort had a mean age of 55.8, and mean follow-up of 59.96 months. There were 78 distal femoral replacements (52%), 16 proximal femoral replacements (10.7%), and 56 proximal tibial replacements (37.3%). There were five patients who experienced aseptic loosening and six patients who experienced mechanical failure. Patients with implant failure had a smaller mean stem to bone diameter (36% vs. 44%; p = 0.002). A stem to bone diameter of 40% appeared to be a breaking point between success and failure in this series, with 90% of patients with implant failure having a stem: bone ratio less than 40%. Stem to bone ratio less than 40% increased risk for failure versus stems that were at least 40% the diameter of bone (6/19 [31.6%] vs. 0/36 [0%]; odds ratio 0.68; p < 0.001). Resection length did not appear to have an impact on the rates of aseptic loosening and mechanical failure in this series. Data from this series suggests a benefit to using stems with a larger diameter when implanting cemented endoprostheses at the hip or knee. Stems which were less than 40% the diameter of bone were substantially more likely to undergo implant failure.

Cantilever Failure of Modular Uncemented Femoral Revision Stem in Patients with Poor Proximal Femoral Support; How to avoid it?

Revision hip arthroplasty is a major surgical challenge and is even more difficult in cases with a deficient proximal femur. Modular uncemented cone body revision femoral stems were introduced as a solution. They have the advantage of optimising joint kinematics by allowing the variable degrees of version, offset and leg length. However, we noticed cantilever failure of such stems, particularly in patients with deficient proximal femoral support. Fatigue fracture of the revision femoral stems should raise questions about its use in patients with insufficient proximal femoral bone support. We present a case series of five patients with the cantilever failure of Stryker restoration modular stem conical distal femur prosthesis. These cases were identified during a retrospective review of revision hip surgeries performed at our trust. The stem failed after an average of 22.6 months post-revision surgery. Primarily, poor proximal femur bone support with a well-fixed distal stem and secondarily high BMI led to this catastrophic failure in the absence of trauma. All five cases were re-revised to Stanmore proximal femoral replacement and achieved good functional outcomes after an average follow-up of seven years. Proximal femoral bone support should be restored to prevent early cantilever failure of distally fixed proximal modular revision femoral stems. Consider a proximal femoral replacement if we cannot ensure proximal bone support.

Salvage Hip Arthroplasty in Nail Failure: A Systematic Review

Background: Femoral nailing is a largely widespread procedure in the elderly population, and the number of these surgeries is rising. Hip arthroplasty is a salvage procedure performed to improve function of the hip after femoral nail failure. The aim of the study is to evaluate functional outcomes, complications and survivorship in hip arthroplasty after femoral nail failure. Methods: A systematic review of three databases (Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane) was performed using the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. After selection, four studies met the inclusion criteria, and 483 treated hips have been analyzed (476 total hip arthroplasties, 7 partial hip arthroplasties). Results: The median value of Harris Hip Score (HHS) after salvage treatment was 86.1. The main indications for salvage treatment were osteoarthrosis, avascular necrosis of the femoral head and instability of the hip. Complications are more frequent than in primary total hip arthroplasty, in particular aseptic loosening and dislocation. Good outcomes have also been achieved using revision-type stems and proximal femoral replacements (PFR). Conclusions: Conversion total hip arthroplasty is confirmed as the optimal treatment for femoral nail failure in the elderly population. Cemented or hybrid total hip arthroplasties have better outcomes than uncemented total hip arthroplasties, and the use of different types of implants widens the possible approaches to surgery in restoring the biomechanics of the hip and increases the satisfaction of patients.

NEW INCENTIVES AND PITFALLS IN PATIENT-SPECIFIC 3D-PRINTED PELVIC IMPLANTS

Custom 3D printed implants can be anatomically designed to assist in complex surgery of the bony pelvis in both orthopaedic oncology and orthopaedic reconstruction surgery.This series includes patients who had major pelvic bone loss after initially presenting with tumours, fractures or infection after previous total hip arthroplasty. The extent of the bone loss in the pelvis was severe and therefore impossible to be reconstructed by conventional ‘off –the-shelve’ implants. The implant was designed considering the remaining bony structures of the contra-lateral hemi- pelvis, to provide an anatomical, secured support for the reconstructed hip joint. The latter was realised by strategically orientated screws and by porous structures (an integral part of the implant), which stimulates osseointegration. A custom pelvic implant was designed, manufactured and 3D printed. Reconstruction of the pelvis was performed together with a cemented (bipolar bearing) acetabular cup. In some cases, a proximal femoral replacement was also necessary to compensate for bony defects.All patients had sufficient range of motion (ROM) at the hip with post-operative stability. It has been verified, at six and twelve months postoperatively, that there is a strong hold of the implant due to osseointegration. Additionally, in patients whose posterior acetabular wall was missing, it was discovered that the implant assisted in bone formation and covered the entire posterior surface of the implant.All patients in this study managed with this novel treatment option, proved to have a stable pelvic reconstruction with restoration of leg lengths, improvement of strength and independent ambulation at short and medium term follow-up.

Management of complications of mega-implants following treatment of primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities

In recent years, indications for implanting mega-implants were established in managing major bone defects linked to revision arthroplasty due to loosening, periprosthetic fractures, re-implantation following periprosthetic joint infection, non-union following fractures as well as complex intraarticular primary fractures. This study was conducted to discuss and analyze the strategy of diagnosis and management of complications following the use of mega-implants in treating primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities. This is a monocentric retrospective study. Patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent implantation of a megaendoprosthesis due to periprosthetic or primary fractures of the lower extremity between January 2010 and February 2023 were identified from the authors’ hospital information system. We identified 96 patients with equal numbers of fractures (71 periprosthetic fractures and 25 primary fractures). 90 cases out of 96 were investigated in this study. The drop-out rate was 6.25% (six cases). The average follow-up period was 22 months (1 to 8 years) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. The diagnosis of complications was provided on the basis of subjective symptoms, clinical signs, radiological findings and laboratory investigations such as C-reactive protein, leucocyte count and the microbiological findings. The indications for implantations of modular mega-implants of the lower extremities were periprosthetic fractures (65 cases/72.22%) and primary fractures (25 cases/27.78%). Pathological fractures due to malignancy were encountered in 23 cases (25.56%), in one case due to primary tumor (1.11%) and 22 cases due to metastatic lesions (24.44%). Two cases (2.22%) presented with primary intraarticular fractures with severe osteoporosis and primary arthrosis. In all cases with malignancy staging was performed. Regarding localization, proximal femur replacement was encountered in 60 cases (66.67%), followed by distal femur replacement (28 cases/31.11%) and total femur replacement (2 cases/2.22%). The overall complication rate was 23.33% (21 complications in 21 patients). The most common complication was dislocation which was encountered in nine cases (10%), all following proximal femoral replacement (9 cases out of 60, making 15% of cases with proximal femoral replacement). The second most common complication was infection (six cases, 6.67%), followed by four aseptic loosenings (4.44%), further intraoperative periprosthetic fracture in one case (1.11%) and a broken implant in one case (1.11%). We noticed no cases with wear and tear of the polyethylene components and no cases of disconnections of the modular components. Mega-endoprostheses enable versatile management options in the treatment of primary and periprosthetic fractures of the lower extremities. The rate of complications such as loosening, implant failure, dislocation and infection are within an acceptable range in this preliminary analysis. However, implantation of mega-endoprostheses must be strictly indicated due the limited salvage options following surgery.