International Orthopaedics

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 458–464 | Cite as

Lower limb salvage surgery: modular endoprosthesis in bone tumour treatment

Original Paper


We retrospectively analysed 90 patients who underwent “en bloc” resection and modular endoprosthesis reconstruction in the lower limbs between 1987–2003. After proximal femur resection, reconstruction was performed with a modular endoprosthesis by Howmedica (KFTR, designed by Kotz) and modular revision endoprosthesis by W. Link or Lima-Lto (Revision system, designed by Wagner). The knee joint was reconstructed with a modular endoprosthesis (Howmedica, KFTR designed by Kotz) after distal femur or proximal tibia resection. Malignant bone tumours were present in 58 patients (64.5%), benign tumours in 16 (17.8%), metastases in 8 (8.9%), tumour-like lesions in 4 (4.4 %) and non-tumour-related destruction of the femur in 4 patients (4.4%). High-grade tumours were found in the majority of malignant bone tumours (70.7%). Treatment complications, which occurred in 26 patients, were: local recurrence of the tumour, deep infection, acetabular destruction following hemiarthroplasty, recurrent dislocations of endoprosthesis, periprosthetic fracture and hardware problems. In total, 23 patients (25.6%) died due to tumours. Endoprostheses should be considered as a treatment of choice for bone tumours in the hip and knee joint region. Advances in limb salvage surgery are, and will long continue to be, a great challenge for orthopaedic oncologists of the 21st century.


Nous avons analysé de façon rétrospective 90 patients sur une période s’étendant de 1987 à 2003 et ayant bénéficié d’une résection au bloc avec reconstruction du membre inférieur par une endoprothèse modulaire. Cette reconstruction a été réalisée avec une endoprothèse de type Howmedica KFTR (Kotz), une endoprothèse médulaire de Link Lima-Lto (Wagner). La reconstruction articulaire du genou étant réalisée avec l’endoprothèse modulaire Howmedica KFTR (Kotz) après une résection du fémur distal ou du tibia proximal. Cinquante-huit patients (64.5%) présentaient une tumeur maligne, 16 (17.8%) une tumeur bénigne, 8 (8.9%) une métastase et 4 (4.4%) une tumeur tissue-like. Enfin, quatre patients ont été traités après une destruction fémorale non tumourale (4.4%). Une tumeur de haut grade a été trouvée dans la majorité des patients présentant une tumeur maligne (70.7%). Des complications sont survenues chez 26 patients avec récidive de la tumeur, infection profonde, destruction acétabulaire après hémiarthroplastie, luxation récidivante, fracture périprothétique. Au total, 23 patients (25.6%) sont morts de leur tumeur. L’endoprothèse a été considérée comme un traitement de choix pour les tumeurs osseuses de la hanche et du genou. Néanmoins, des progrès doivent être encore réalisés par les chirurgiens au cours du 21ème siècle.


  1. 1.
    Abudu A, Grimer R, Tillman R, Carter S (2006) The use of prostheses in skeletally immature patients. Orthop Clin North Am 37:75–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bacci G, Picci P, Ferrari S, Ruggieri P, Casadei R, Tienghi A, Brach del Prever A, Gherlinzoni F, Mercuri M, Monti C (1993) Primary chemotherapy and delayed surgery for nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremities. Results in 164 patients preoperatively treated with high doses of methotrexate followed by cisplatin and doxorubicin. Cancer 72:3227–3238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bickels J, Meller I, Henshaw RM, Malawer MM (2000) Reconstruction of hip stability after proximal and total femur reconstruction. Clin Orthop 375:218–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cara JA, Canadell J (1994) Limb salvage for malignant bone tumours in young children J Pediatr Orthop 14:112–118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cool WP, Carter SR, Grimer RJ, Tillman RM, Walker PS (1997) Growth after extendible endoprosthetic replacement of the distal femur. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 79:938–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donati D, Giacomini S, Gozzi E, Mercuri M (2002) Proximal femur reconstruction by an allograft prosthesis composite. Clin Orthop 394:192–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eckardt JJ, Eilber FR, Dorey FJ, Mirra JM (1985) The UCLA experience in limb salvage surgery for malignant tumours. Orthopedics 8:612–621PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA (1980) A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop 153:106–120PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Futani H, Minamizaki T, Nishimoto Y, Abe S, Yabe H, Ueda T (2006) Long-term follow-up after limb salvage in skeletally immature children with a primary malignant tumour of the distal end of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 88:595–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gibbs CP Jr, Weber K, Scarborough MT (2001) Malignant bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 83:1728–1745Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grimmer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Sneath RS, Walker PS, Unwin PS, Shewell PC (1999) Endoprosthetic replacement of proximal tibia. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 81:488–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ham SJ, Schraffordt Koops H, Veth RP, van Horn JR, Molenaar WM, Hoekstra HJ (1998) Limb salvage surgery for primary bone sarcoma of the lower extremities: long-term consequences of endoprosthetic reconstructions. Ann Surg Oncol 5:423–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kawai A, Muschler GF, Lane JM, Otis JC, Healey JH (1998) Prosthetic knee replacement after resection of a malignant tumour of the distal part of the femur. Medium to long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 80:636–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kotz R, Dominkus M, Zettl T, Ritschl P, Windhager R, Gadner H, Zielinski C, Salzer-Kuntschik M (2002) Advances in bone tumour treatment in 30 years with respect to survival and limb salvage. A single institution experience. Int Orthop 26:197–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Link MP, Goorin AM, Horowitz M, Meyer WH, Belasco J, Baker A, Ayala A, Shuster J (1991) Adjuvant chemotherapy of high-grade osteosarcoma of the extremity. Updated results of the multi-institutional osteosarcoma study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 270:8–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Malawer MM, Chou LB (1995) Prosthetic survival and clinical results with use of large-segment replacements in the treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 77:1154–1165Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manfrini M, Innocenti M, Ceruso M, Mercuri M (2003) Original biological reconstruction of the hip in a 4-year-old girl. Lancet 361:140–142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Natarajan M, Bose JC, Rajkumar G (2003) Proximal femoral reconstruction with custom mega prosthesis. Int Orthop 27:175–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orlic D, Baebler B, Smerdelj M (1991) Complications of non-cemented tumoural endoprostheses. Brown K (ed) Complications of limb salvage. Prevention, management an outcome. ISOLS, Montreal, pp 421–424Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Orlic D, Smerdelj M, Kolundzic R, Bergovec M (2005) Acetabular complications after resection of bone tumour localized in proximal femur in growing children with partial hip endoprosthesis-biomechanical consideration. In: Program and abstracts of the 7th EFORT Congress, 4–7 June 2005, Lisboa, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Posinkovic B, Orlic D (1983) Prosthetic replacement of the knee in the treatment of infected and recurring giant cell tumour of the distal femur. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 102:131–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanjay BK, Moreau PG (1999) Limb salvage surgery in bone tumour with modular endoprosthesis. Int Orthop 23:41–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wedin R (2001) Surgical treatment for pathologic fracture. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 72:2:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weisstein JS, Goldsby RE, O’Donnell RJ (2005) Oncologic approaches to pediatric limb preservation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 13:544–554PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Orlic
    • 1
  • M. Smerdelj
    • 1
  • R. Kolundzic
    • 1
  • M. Bergovec
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryClinical Hospital Centre Zagreb and Zagreb University School of MedicineZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations