Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Ultra-short stem anchorage in the proximal tibial epiphysis after intercalary tumor resections: analysis of reconstruction survival in four patients at a mean follow-up of 56 months

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Tumors localized in the proximal tibial meta-diaphysis often lead to osteoarticular resections.

Materials and methods

In this study, we retrospectively reviewed four patients who underwent intercalary tumor resection and reconstruction using an ultra-short stem in the proximal tibial epiphysis, a procedure that to our knowledge has not been reported in literature so far.

Results

At the time of operation, the mean patient age was 26.2 years. Three patients were male and one was female. Patients were diagnosed with osteosarcoma in two cases, Ewing’s sarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma of bone in one case each. In all cases, wide tumor resections were achieved (osteotomy 3–3.5 cm below the tibia plateau joint surface, mean resection length of tibial bone 18 cm) at a mean time of operation of 198.8 min. Two superficial wound-healing disorders occurred, leading to one surgical revision in each case. One local tumor recurrence occurred 12 months after operation in a patient who discontinued his adjuvant chemotherapy. This patient died of disease, 31 months after operation. Three patients are alive with no evidence of disease at a mean follow-up of 56 months. Walking is not impaired and light sports activities have been reported in all cases. The mean MSTS score is 28/30.

Conclusions

Therefore, we report this reconstruction technique to be considered for special indications where the functional outcome can be improved by preservation of the knee joint in tumors of the proximal meta-diaphyseal tibial region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aldlyami E, Abudu A, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM (2008) Endoprosthetic replacement of diaphyseal bone defects. Int Orthop 29(1):25–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fuchs B, Ossendorf C, Leerapun T, Sim FH (2008) Intercalary segmental reconstruction after bone tumor resection. Eur J Surg Oncol 34(12):1271–1276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sewell MD, Hanna SA, McGrath A, Aston WJ, Blunn GW, Pollock RC, Skinner JA, Cannon SR, Briggs TW (2011) Intercalary diapyhseal endoprosthetic reconstruction for malignant tibial bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(8):1111–1117

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Friedrich MJ, Schmolders J, Lob G, Randau TM, Gravius S, Wirtz DC, Pennekamp PH (2015) Intercalary reconstruction for diaphyseal bone defects with a modular replacement system: Clinical results. Oper Orthop Traumatol 27(5):455–462

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Aponte-Tinao L, Farfalli GL, Ritacco LE, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL (2012) Intercalary femur allografts are an acceptable alternative after tumor resection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(3):728–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR (2006) Intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction for diaphyseal bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(11):1487–1491

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Benevenia J, Kirchner R, Patterson F, Beebe K, Wirtz DC, Rivero S, Palma M, Friedrich MJ (2016) Outcomes of a modular intercalary endoprosthesis as treatment for segmental defects of the femur, tibia, and humerus. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(2):539–548

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hardes J, Henrichs MP, Gosheger G, Gebert C, Höll S, Dieckmann R, Hauschild G, Streitbürger A (2013) Endoprosthetic replacement after extra-articular resection of bone and soft-tissue tumours around the knee. Bone Joint J 95-B(10):1425–1431

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Streitbürger A, Gosheger G, Dieckmann R, Nottrott M, Ahrens H, Hardes J (2014) Bone defect reconstruction in bone sarcoma surgery: tumour endoprosthesis versus biological reconstruction. Unfallchirurg 117(7):600–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Myers GJ, Abudu AT, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Grimer RJ (2007) The long-term results of endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia for bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(12):1632–1637

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Capanna R, Scoccianti G, Frenos F, Vilardi A, Beltrami G, Campanacci DA (2015) What was the survival of megaprostheses in lower limb reconstructions after tumor resections? Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(3):820–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Aponte-Tinao LA, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL, Farfalli GL (2016) What are the risk factors and management options for infection after reconstruction with massive bone allografts? Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(3):669–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Campanacci L, Manfrini M, Colangeli M, Alí N, Mercuri M (2010) Long-term results in children with massive bone osteoarticular allografts of the knee for high-grade osteosarcoma. J Pediatr Orthop 30(8):919–927

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Aponte-Tinao L, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL, Farfalli GL (2015) Survival, recurrence, and function after epiphyseal preservation and allograft reconstruction in osteosarcoma of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(5):1789–1796

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Campanacci L, Alì N, Casanova JM, Kreshak J, Manfrini M (2015) Resurfaced allograft-prosthetic composite for proximal tibial reconstruction in children: intermediate-term results of an original technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(3):241–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. K. Guder.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study (retrospective study design), formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guder, W.K., Hardes, J., Gosheger, G. et al. Ultra-short stem anchorage in the proximal tibial epiphysis after intercalary tumor resections: analysis of reconstruction survival in four patients at a mean follow-up of 56 months. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137, 481–488 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2637-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2637-7

Keywords

Navigation