Medical and Dental Consultantsí Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 292   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 

  Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 9  |  Page : 1127-1132

Reconstruction of lower extremity primary malignant and metastatic bone tumours with modular endoprosthesis


1 Department of Orthopedic and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Sabuncuoğlu Şerefeddin Research and Training Hospital, Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey
2 Department of Orthopedic and Traumatology Clinic, Kayseri Research and Training Hospital, Kayseri, Turkey
3 Department of Orthopedic and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey

Date of Acceptance31-May-2016
Date of Web Publication26-Oct-2017

Correspondence Address:
H Göçer
Department of Orthopaedics, Hospital of Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun; Ondokuzmayıs unv. Medicine faculty, Kurupelit- Atakum/Samsun
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.217243

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Introduction: This study is aimed to assess the functional results of cases with lower extremity malignant and metastatic bone tumours that were treated with modular tumour resection prostheses. Materials and Methods: 49 patients were retrospectively examined. 27 (55.1%) patients had a primary bone tumour, and 22 (44.9%) had a metastatic bone tumour. Although most tumours located in the proximal femur were metastatic, tumours located around the knee were mostly primary malignant bone tumours. The functional assessments of our patients were made according to the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) scoring system. The Student's t-test and the Chi-square test were used for statistical analyses. Results: 30 (61.2%) of the patients were men, and 19 (38.8%) were women. The average age was 46.2 ± 1.9 years. Tumours were located in the proximal femur in 27 (55.1%) patients, distal femur in 16 (32.7%) patients and proximal tibia in 6 (12.2%) patients. 14 (28.6%) patients had a pathological fracture on admission. The average follow-up period of our patients was 27.4 ± 3.4 months, and the average MSTS score was 74.3 ± 13%. Complications developed at any time in 34.7% of the patients, and the most common symptoms were aseptic loosening (8.2%) and prosthesis infection (8.2%). Local relapse was found in one (2%) patient. The 5-year survival rate was 68.3% in patients with a primary tumour and 30% in patients with a metastatic tumour. Conclusion: Although endoprosthesis reconstruction had advantages of giving very good functional results in the early phases, it was found to cause mechanical complications, especially in patients with primary bone tumours during the mid and late phases.

Keywords: Endoprosthesis reconstruction, extremity protective surgery, functional outcome, malignant bone tumours, metastatic bone tumours


How to cite this article:
Sezgin H, Çıraklı A, Göçer H, Dabak N. Reconstruction of lower extremity primary malignant and metastatic bone tumours with modular endoprosthesis. Niger J Clin Pract 2017;20:1127-32

How to cite this URL:
Sezgin H, Çıraklı A, Göçer H, Dabak N. Reconstruction of lower extremity primary malignant and metastatic bone tumours with modular endoprosthesis. Niger J Clin Pract [serial online] 2017 [cited 2020 Sep 30];20:1127-32. Available from: http://www.njcponline.com/text.asp?2017/20/9/1127/217243


   Introduction Top


As a result of advancements in imaging techniques and oncological treatments, the use of new chemotherapeutic agents, improvements in radiotherapy and the experiences gained along with the technological improvements in primary malignant and metastatic bone tumours, many significant improvements have been observed in the prognosis and rates of survival over the last 25 years.[1],[2] On reviewing previous studies, no significant difference was found between amputation and extremity protective surgery in terms of survival and the results following reconstruction using endoprostheses were perfect.[3] Thus, surgical treatment has tended towards extremity protective surgical interventions after 1990s.[4] This observation can be explained by the fact that extremity protective surgeries do not reduce survival; however, they do increase the rate of recurrence. The cooperation between reconstructive surgery and the field of oncology at present is more promising for the future.

The main purpose of extremity protective surgical interventions is to totally eliminate the local disease without causing a major change in the patient's survival and function. Reconstruction with prostheses following resection during the surgical treatment of lower extremity primary malignant and metastatic bone tumours contributes greatly to this purpose. It is currently the preferred method as it enables rapid rehabilitation and mobilization with stability during the early post-surgical phase and has a low frequency of complications.[5]

The purpose of this study was to assess the functional response of patients who received reconstruction with an endoprosthesis following resection of lower extremity primary malignant and metastatic bone tumours and to assess the factors that can affect this response.


   Materials and Methods Top


49 patients who received a modular-type tumour resection prosthesis (Megasystem-C prosthesis, Waldemar Link, Hamburg, Germany) in our clinic during 2000-2012 due to the presence of a lower extremity primary malignant and metastatic bone tumour and who had sufficient follow-ups were retrospectively assessed after permission was received from our local ethical board. The patients were analysed in terms of age, gender, direction, histological diagnosis, pathological fracture, treatment, functional outcome, complications, recurrence, patient survival, and the life of the prosthesis.

The Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) scoring system was used to assess the functional results.[6] The MSTS scores of living and deceased patients were based on the scores calculated during their last examination. With this scoring system, a total of six parameters including pain, functional capacity, emotional acceptance, support use, walking distance, and way-of-walking were evaluated. Each parameter was scored between zero and five according to specific criteria, and the results were calculated in percentages by dividing by 30, which is the highest score. The MSTS scores obtained were classified as perfect 75%-100%, good 70%-74%, moderate 60%–69%, insufficient 50%–59% or bad <50%.

Statistical evaluation

After the data obtained from the study were coded, they were analysed with the SPSS 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) package program. The descriptive characteristics of the data were expressed as the average ± the standard deviation, numbers and percentages. The Shapiro-Wilk's test was used to determine whether the measurable variables were normally distributed. As the data was normally-distributed, the Student's t-test was used to make comparisons between groups. The Chi-square test was used for comparing the data obtained while scoring. The statistical significance level was accepted as p < 0.05 for all tests. A Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to calculate the survival rates.


   Results Top


Of the 49 patients, 30 (61.2%) were men and 19 (38.8%) were women; the average age was 46.2 ± 1.9 years. The youngest patient was 13 years old, whereas the oldest one was 83 years old. The average age of patients with a primary bone tumour (N = 27) (36.2 ± 20 years) was significantly lower than that of patients with a metastatic bone tumour (N = 22) (58.4 ± 10 years) (p < 0.01). The age distributions (in years) were as follows in terms of localization: 57.7 ± 10.6 years in patients with proximal femur involvement (N = 27), 32.93 ± 21 years in patients with distal femur involvement (N = 16) and 29.8 ± 12 years in patients with proximal tibia involvement (N = 6). Patients with proximal femur involvement formed the oldest group, whereas patients with proximal tibia involvement formed the youngest group. When the patient's ages were analysed in terms of histological diagnoses, patients with osteosarcoma formed the youngest group, whereas patients with prostate carcinoma metastasis formed the oldest group [Table 1].
Table 1: Histologic diagnoses and age distribution as of ages

Click here to view


27 (55.1%) patients had a primary bone tumour, and 22 (44.9%) patients had a metastatic bone tumour. The tumour was in the proximal femur of 27 (55.1%) patients, in the distal femur of 16 (32.7%) patients and in the proximal tibia of 6 (12.2%) patients. 14 (28.6%) patients exhibited a pathological fracture at admission. The direction of the involvement was in the right lower extremity in 17 (34.7%) patients and in the left lower extremity in 32 (65.3%) patients.

The average follow-up time for our patients was 27.4 ± 3.4 months. The average follow-up time for patients with a primary tumour was 39.6 ± 42.6 months, whereas for patients with a metastatic tumour was 12.4 ± 10.5 months. The average follow-up time was statistically significantly higher in the primary tumour group (p < 0.05). In terms of histological diagnoses, the longest follow-up time was in patients with malignant fibrous hystiocytoma (N = 2), whereas the shortest time was found in patients with long carcinoma metastasis (N = 11) [Table 2].
Table 2: Follow-up times in terms of histologic diagnosis

Click here to view


The average postoperative MSTS score of all patients was 74.3 ± 13.3. Although the average MSTS score was 81.2 ± 12.2 for the primary bone tumour group, the MSTS score was 65.8 ± 9.1 in the metastatic tumour group. The average MSTS score in primary tumour group was statistically significantly higher than that of the metastatic tumour group (p < 0.05). In all of the series, the following results were found: 24 perfect (49%), 9 good (18.4%), 11 moderate (22.4%), 3 insufficient (6.1%) and 2 bad (4.1%). Of the patients included in the study, 34.7% (17 patients) experienced a complication during their follow-up. The average time for the development of complications was 27.8 ± 2.9 months. Complications were as follows: prosthesis dislocation in two (4.1%) patients, prosthesis infection in four (8.2%) patients, periprostatic fracture in two (4.1%) patients, local recurrence in one (2%) patient, postoperative peroneal symptom in two (4.1%) patients, skin necrosis in two (4.1%) patients and aseptic loosening in four (8.2%) patients. The most common symptoms were aseptic loosening and prosthesis infection.

16 patients (33%), the average age of whom was 57.4 ± 13.4 years, died during the follow-up due to various reasons. 13 of the patients who died were men, and 3 were women. Their average follow-up time was 8 ± 3.6 months. 13 of these patients received proximal femur resection prosthesis, whereas 3 received distal femur resection prosthesis. In terms of histological diagnoses, one patient had multiple myeloma, two patients had breast carcinoma metastasis, one patient had thyroid medullar carcinoma metastasis, nine patients had lung carcinoma metastasis and two patients had prostate carcinoma metastasis. One patient, who had anosteocarcinoma located in the distal femur, received high femoral amputation after developing local recurrence during the 12th month. The patient died during the 14th month due to common lung metastasis. The patient with multiple myeloma died due to chronic renal failure, and the other patients died due to advanced metastatic disease. None of our patients who received radiotherapy and chemotherapy died due to oncologic treatment.

Of the patients who had a primary bone tumour, 86.2% were alive during postoperative month 6, 71.3% were alive during postoperative month 12 and 68.3% were alive during postoperative month 60. Of the patients who had a metastatic bone tumour, 77% were alive during postoperative month 6, 45% were alive during postoperative month 12 and 30% were alive during postoperative month 60. According to the Kaplan–Meier analysis, survival times and rates in all cases were 87.5% during month 6, 79.2% during month 12 and 64% during month 60 [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Survival rates of patients in months

Click here to view


The average prosthesis life was 32.2 ± 31 months in patients with a primary bone tumour (N = 27), 12.4 ± 10.5 months in patients with a metastatic bone tumour (N = 22) and was found to be statistically longer in patients with a primary bone tumour (p < 0.05). According to the Kaplan–Meier analysis, prosthesis survival in all cases was 93% during month 6, 67% during month 12, 64% during month 60 and 64% during month 120 [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Prosthesis survival rates in months

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


In primary malignant and metastatic bone tumours, resection, surgical excision of the tumour, including amputation, has been performed for many years. Extremity protective techniques were developed at the beginning of 1970s.[7],[8] Developments in the prosthesis industry, as a result of recent technological advancements and experiences gained through the use of these implants, have increased the 5-year follow-up success of tumour endoprostheses from 20% to 85%. Consequently, extremity protective surgical interventions are now more commonly used than amputation in the treatment of bone tumours.[1] Reconstruction with an endoprosthesis has the advantages of stability, early load efficiency, being far from osteosynthesis concerns, and providing acute functional restoration.[9] However, in the long run, especially among younger cases, the need for revision caused by use, growth and other complications serve as a disadvantage.[1]

Yalnız et al.[1] performed modular tumour prosthesis on 23 patients with an average age of 49 years (between 14 and 81 years old), İlbeyli et al.[10] performed modular tumour prosthesis on 50 patients with an average age of 41.4 years (between 15 and 75 years old) and Qadir et al.[11] performed modular tumour prosthesis on 16 patients with an average age of 36.7 years (between 14 and 73 years old). The average age of the 49 patients in our series was 46.2 years (between 13 and 83 years old), and the age distribution was similar to that observed in previous studies. In previous studies, the average age of patients with a metastatic tumour was higher than that of patients with a primary malignant bone tumour.[1],[10],[11] Similarly, in our study, the average age of patients with a metastatic tumour was significantly higher than that of patients with a primary malignant bone tumour (p < 0.05). The patients with a proximal femur tumour represented the oldest group, whereas the patients with a tumour located within the proximal tibia formed the youngest group. We believe this is due to the fact that most of the patients with a tumour located in the proximal femur had a metastatic bone tumour, whereas almost all the patients with a tumour located in the proximal tibia had a primary malignant bone tumour.

The average follow-up time in our patients (primary and metastatic) was 27.4 months. Studies suggest that the follow-up time changes between month 1 and month 156; this average was similar to the values in our study.[1],[10],[11] Similar to preivous studies, the average follow-up time of the patients with a primary bone tumour was statistically significantly higher than that of patients with a metastatic bone tumour (p < 0.05). This situation can be explained by the fact that patients with a metastatic tumour were old and that they died during the early phase.

On comparing our functional results with those of previous studies, which assessed the overall (i.e., primary and metastatic) patients, among patients with an average MSTS score of 73.7% (43%-100%), we found that İlbeyli et al.[10] got perfect results in 10%, good results in 54%, moderate results in 32% and bad results in 4%. Similarly, Yalnız et al.[1] found the average MSTS score to be 58.9 % (40%-90%), Bruns et al.[12] found the score to be 83% (60%-100%) and Heisel et al.[13] found that the score to be 72%. In addition, good or perfect results were found in 94% of the patients. Qadir et al.[11] found the average MSTS score to be 72.3% in their series and found perfect results in 37% of their patients, good results in 31%, moderate results in 12%, insufficient results in 12% and bad results in 6% of their patients. In our series, the average MSTS score was 74.3% (46%-96%) and perfect results were found in 49% of our patients. In addition, we found good results in 18.4% of our patients, moderate results were found in 22.4%, insufficient results were found in 6.1% and bad results were found in 4.1% of our patients. The postoperative average MSTS scores of patients with a primary and metastatic tumour in our series were similar to those of previous studies and were found to be statistically higher among the primary tumour group when compared to those of the metastatic tumour group (p < 0.05). Similar to our study, Yalnız et al.[1] found that the average MSTS scores were significantly higher among the primary tumour group when compared to those of the metastatic tumour group (p < 0.05). These results can be associated with the fact that patients with a primary bone tumour are younger and have an increased rate of survival.

When the functional results of patients from previous studies who underwent a modular tumour resection prosthesis due to a pathological fracture were examined, the average MSTS score was calculated as 62.3% (44%-80%) by Hattori et al.[14] and as 64% by Natarajan et al.[15] In our series, the average MSTS score was calculated as 67.7% (58%-76%), and the average MSTS score of patients who did not have a pathological fracture was statistically significantly higher than that of patients with a pathological fracture (p < 0.05). This result was associated with the fact that most of the patients who underwent operations for a pathological fracture had advanced-stage metastatic disease, and thus, had comorbid systemic diseases and a general poor state of health.

When the general complication rates of previous studies that assessed primary and metastatic tumours together were examined, it was found that complication rates varied by study. In general, the most common complications were prosthesis infection, aseptic loosening and local recurrence.[1],[10],[11],[13] Of the patients in our series, 34.7% developed complications during the course of follow-up. The most common complications in our study were prosthesis infection (8.2%) and aseptic loosening (8.2%). Complication rates were similar to those found in previous studies and the complication rates in the primary bone tumour group were statistically significantly higher than those of the metastatic tumour group (p < 0.05). We associate the higher complication rates observed among the primary bone tumour group with the longer follow-up time when compared with that of the metastatic group. Prosthesis dislocation in two patients was due to the body segment joint of the prosthesis. This was associated with the fact that the first series of the producing firm did not have screw fixation in the segment joint. This complication was not seen in the series that followed. It was thought that the aseptic softening observed in the four patients developed due to chemotherapy-induced bone necrosis in the early phases of prostheses that were applied without cement, and this situation was thought to result from the structure of the prosthesis.

When the general patient survival rates from previous studies that assessed primary and metastatic tumours together were examined, the survival rates in 5 years were 87% according to the Kaplan–Meier analysis in the series of Bruns et al.,[12] 74.5% in the Niimi et al.[16] series and 66.7% in the Natarajan et al.[15] series. In our series, the survival rates of patients, in general, according to Kaplan-Meier analysis was 87.5% during postoperative month 6, 79.2% during the first year and 64% during the fifth year. Survival rates in studies varied, and this is associated with the different rates of patients with primary and metastatic tumours in the different series. The survival rates of patients according to the Kaplan–Meier analysis in the series that had a modular tumour resection prosthesis due to a primary bone tumour was 93% for the 5-year survival rate as calculated by Schwartz et al.,[17] 93% for the 2-year survival rate and 87% for 10-year survival rate as calculated by Zimel et al.[18] and 88% for 5-year survival rate as calculated by Flint et al.[19] The survival rates of patients according to Kaplan–Meier analysis in series that had a modular tumour resection prosthesis due to the presence of a metastatic bone tumour was 86% for 6-month survival, 54% for 1-year survival, 37% for 2-year survival as calculated by Hattori et al.,[14] and 60% for 1-year survival, 38% for the 3-year survival and 30% for 5-year survival as calculated by Chan et al.[20]

Our series is similar that of previous studies, according to the Kaplan-Meier analysis, survival rates in patients with a primary bone tumour was 68.3% during year 5 and 30% in patients with a metastatic bone tumour during year 5.


   Conclusion Top


Although endoprostheses provide very good functional results during the early phase, they may cause complications during the mid and late phases, especially in patients with primary bone tumours, as a result of their increased survival rates. With advances in technology, we believe that they will make great contributions and increase the quality of life for patients in this group.

Acknowledgments

We thank the members of skeletal system tumours council for their contributions.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Yalnız E, Çiftdemir M, Memişoǧlu S. Functional results of patients treated with modular prosthetic replacement for bone tumors of the extremities. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2008;42:238-45.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Erler K, Demiralp B, Özdemir T, Başbozkurt M. Successful results of total femoral resection and prosthetic replacement in two patients. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2004;38:79-84.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Eckardt JJ, Eilber FR, Dorey FJ, Mirra JM. The UCLA experience in limb salvage surgery for malignant tumors. Orthopedics 1985;8:612-21.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Yurdoǧlu C, Gökçay İ, Altun M, Şahlan Ş, Yalaman O. Iskelet sistemi sarkomlarında ekstremite koruyucu cerrahi girişimleri. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 1994;28:32.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Zeegen EN, Aponte-Tinao LA, Hornicek FJ, Gebhardt MC, Mankin HJ. Survivorship analysis of 141 modular metallic endoprostheses at early follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;420:239-50.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawer M, Pritchard DJ. A system for the functional evaluation of the reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop 1993;286:241-61.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Arıkan M, Metin E, Güngör Ş, Karakoç Y, Gürler D, İnce B. Surgical therapy results of osteosarcoma patients. Acta Oncologica Turcica 2007;40:23-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Marcove RC, Rosen G. En bloc resections for osteogenic sarcoma. Cancer 1980;45:3040.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Zwart HJ. Taminiau AH, Schimmel JW, van Horn JR. Kotz modular femur and tibia replacement. 28 tumor cases followed for 3 (1-8) years. Acta Orthop Scand 1994;65:315-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Ilbeyli Hakan. Alt Ekstremite Primer Malign ve Metastatik Kemik Tümörlerinde Rezeksiyon Artroplastisi Sonuçları. Diss. Dissertation, Çukurova University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Adana 2005.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Qadir I, Umer M, Baloch N. Functional outcome of limb salvage surgery with mega-endoprosthetic reconstruction for bone tumors. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012;132:1227-32.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Bruns J, Delling G, Gruber H, Lohmann CH, Habermann CR. Cementless fixation of megaprostheses using a conical fluted stem in the treatment of bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:1084-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Heisel C, Kinkel S, Bernd L, Ewerbeck V. Megaprostheses for the treatment of malignant bone tumours of the lower limbs. Int Orthop 2006;30:452-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Hattori H, Mibe J, Yamamoto K. Modular megaprosthesis in metastatic bone disease of the femur. Orthopedics 2011;34:e871-6.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Natarajan MV, Mohanlal P, Bose JC. The role of limb salvage and custom megaprosthesis in multiple myeloma. Acta Orthop Belg 2007;73:462-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Niimi R, Matsumine A, Hamaguchi T, Nakamura T, Uchida A, Sudo A. Prosthetic limb salvage surgery for bone and soft tissue tumors around the knee. Oncol Rep 2012;28:1984-90.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Schwartz AJ, Kabo JM, Eilber FC, Eilber FR, Eckardt JJ. Cemented distal femoral endoprostheses for musculoskeletal tumor: improved survival of modular versus custom implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:2198-210.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Zimel MN, Cizik AM, Rapp TB, Weisstein JS, Conrad EU. 3rd Megaprosthesis versus Condyle-sparing intercalary allograft: distal femoral sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:2813-24.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Flint MN, Griffin AM, Bell RS, Ferguson PC, Wunder JS. Aseptic loosening is uncommon with uncemented proximal tibia tumor prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;450:52-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Chan D, Carter SR, Grimer RJ, Sneath RS. Endoprosthetic replacement for bony metastases. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1992;74:13-8.  Back to cited text no. 20
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1397    
    Printed29    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded239    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal