Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 41, Issue 7, pp 1337–1345 | Cite as

Long-term functional and radiological outcomes of allograft hip prosthesis composite. A fourteen -year follow-up study

  • Arnaud DuboryEmail author
  • Eric Mascard
  • Méryl Dahan
  • Philippe Anract
  • Charles Court
  • Stéphane Boisgard
  • Brice Viard
  • Gilles Missenard
  • SOFCOT (The French Society of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery)
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

Allograft hip composite prosthesis (APC) is a type of reconstruction after resection of the proximal femur. This study aimed to assess long-term outcomes after an APC reconstruction.

Materials and methods

Forty-six patients were retrospectively included (14 revision total hip replacements, 30 primary malignant bone tumors, two metastasis).

Results

The mean length of femoral bone resection was 16.4 cm (7 to 27). With a mean follow-up of 14.7 years (6.3 to 32.6), Postel-Merle d’Aubigné score was 15.7 (8 to 21), Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score at 23.1 or 77% (15 to 29), and abductor strength at 3.4 (2 to 5). Allograft resorption was minor for 20 patients (44.4%), moderate for 13 patients (28.9%), and severe for 12 patients (26.7%). Host-allograft shaft bone fusion was achieved in 37 cases (84.1%). Trochanteric fracture occurred in 26 cases (59.1%). Length of femoral resection, allograft bone resorption, and trochanteric fracture did not have an effect on functional outcomes. At ten years follow-up, overall revision-free and femoral stem survivals were 54.1 ± 0.8% and 81.4 ± 0.6% respectively. No parameter evaluated influenced the survivorship.

Conclusion

APC is a reliable reconstruction adapted for huge proximal femoral bone resections. Trochanteric fracture and allograft bone resorption do not seem to influence functional results.

Level of evidence: Level IV

Keywords

Abductor strength Allograft hip prosthesis Allograft resorption Primary malignant bone tumor Trochanteric fracture 

Abbreviations

APC

Allograft hip Prosthesis Composite

AP

anteroposterior

GT

Greater Trochanter

MSTS

MusculoSkeletal Tumor Society

PMA

Postel-Merle d’Aubigne

RHA

Revision Hip Arthroplasty

MRI

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

vs.

versus

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the SOFCOT (The French Society of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery) and its participating members for the financing and the support of this multicentre retrospective study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No author received any financial support that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. No author or any member of his or her immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (e.g. consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

I agree and confirm this statement as true.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Horowitz SM, Glasser DB, Lane JM, Healey JH (1993) Prosthetic and extremity survivorship after limb salvage for sarcoma. How long do the reconstructions last? Clin Orthop 293:280–286Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Langlais F, Lambotte JC, Collin P, Thomazeau H (2003) Long-term results of allograft composite total hip prostheses for tumors. Clin Orthop 414:197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Uchiyama K, Moriya M, Yamamoto T, Fukushima K, Takahira N, Itoman M (2013) Revision total hip arthroplasty using an interlocking stem with an allograft-prosthesis composite. Acta Orthop Belg 79(4):398–405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farid Y, Lin PP, Lewis VO, Yasko AW (2006) Endoprosthetic and allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction of the proximal femur for bone neoplasms. Clin Orthop 442:223–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zehr RJ, Enneking WF, Scarborough MT (1996) Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction. Clin Orthop 322:207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anract P, Coste J, Vastel L, Jeanrot C, Mascard E, Tomeno B (2000) Proximal femoral reconstruction with megaprosthesis versus allograft prosthesis composite. A comparative study of functional results, complications and longevity in 41 cases. Rev Chir Orthopédique Réparatrice Appar Mot 86(3):278–288Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haddad FS, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Hutchison CR, Gross AE (2000) Femoral bone loss in patients managed with revision hip replacement: results of circumferential allograft replacement. Instr Course Lect 49:147–162PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rasouli MR, Porat MD, Hozack WJ, Parvizi J (2012) Proximal femoral replacement and allograft prosthesis composite in the treatment of periprosthetic fractures with significant proximal bone loss. Orthop Surg 4(4):203–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sternheim A, Drexler M, Kuzyk PR, Safir OA, Backstein DJ, Gross AE (2014) Treatment of failed allograft prosthesis composites used for hip arthroplasty in the setting of severe proximal femoral bone defects. J Arthroplasty 29(5):1058–1062CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Min L, Tang F, Duan H, Zhou Y, Zhang W-L, Shi R et al (2015) Cemented allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction for the proximal femur tumor. OncoTargets Ther 8:2261–2269Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D’Antonio J, McCarthy JC, Bargar WL, Borden LS, Cappelo WN, Collis DK et al (1993) Classification of femoral abnormalities in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 296:133–139Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D’aubigne RM, Postel M (1954) Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36-A(3):451–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ (1993) A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop 286:241–246Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gitelis S, Heligman D, Quill G, Piasecki P (1988) The use of large allografts for tumor reconstruction and salvage of the failed total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 231:62–70Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benedetti MG, Bonatti E, Malfitano C, Donati D (2013) Comparison of allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction and modular prosthetic replacement in proximal femur bone tumors: functional assessment by gait analysis in 20 patients. Acta Orthop 84(2):218–223CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Finstein JL, King JJ, Fox EJ, Ogilvie CM, Lackman RD (2007) Bipolar proximal femoral replacement prostheses for musculoskeletal neoplasms. Clin Orthop 459:66–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meding JB, Ritter MA, Davis KE, Hillery M (2015) Cemented and uncemented total hip arthroplasty using the same femoral component. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther 26(1):62–66Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Babis GC, Sakellariou VI, O’Connor MI, Hanssen AD, Sim FH (2010) Proximal femoral allograft-prosthesis composites in revision hip replacement: a 12-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 92(3):349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Biau DJ, Larousserie F, Thévenin F, Piperno-Neumann S, Anract P (2010) Results of 32 allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop 468(3):834–845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Langlais F (2002) Major reconstructions of the hip by allograft composite prostheses (long-term follow-up of 34 cases). Bull Acad Natl Med 186(3):661–677; discussion 677–681Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang J-W, Wang C-J (2004) Proximal femoral allografts for bone deficiencies in revision hip arthroplasty: a medium-term follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 19(7):845–852CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mu Jung J, Sang Kim C (2014) Analysis of stress distribution around total hip stems custom-designed for the standardized Asian femur configuration. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 28(3):525–532CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mayle RE, Paprosky WG (2012) Massive bone loss: allograft-prosthetic composites and beyond. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 94(11 Suppl A):61–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Donati D, Giacomini S, Gozzi E, Mercuri M (2002) Proximal femur reconstruction by an allograft prosthesis composite. Clin Orthop 394:192–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Biau DJ, Davis A, Vastel L, Tomeno B, Anract P (2008) Function, disability, and health-related quality of life after allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions of the proximal femur. J Surg Oncol 97(3):210–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Qu H, Guo W, Yang R, Tang X, Yan T, Li D et al (2015) Cortical strut bone grafting and long-stem endoprosthetic reconstruction following massive bone tumour resection in the lower limb. Bone Joint J 97-B(4):544–549Google Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnaud Dubory
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Eric Mascard
    • 3
  • Méryl Dahan
    • 4
  • Philippe Anract
    • 4
  • Charles Court
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stéphane Boisgard
    • 5
  • Brice Viard
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gilles Missenard
    • 1
    • 2
  • SOFCOT (The French Society of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery)
  1. 1.Orthopaedic Department, Tumor and Spine UnitBicêtre University Hospital, AP-HP ParisLe Kremlin-BicêtreFrance
  2. 2.JE 2494 Univ Paris-Sud OrsayOrsayFrance
  3. 3.Clinique AragoParisFrance
  4. 4.Orthopaedic DepartmentCochin University Hospital, AP-HP ParisParisFrance
  5. 5.Orthopaedic DepartmentUniversity Hospital-Medical School Clermont-Ferrand, CHU Gabriel-MontpiedClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations