Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 132, Issue 9, pp 1227–1232 | Cite as

Functional outcome of limb salvage surgery with mega-endoprosthetic reconstruction for bone tumors

  • Irfan QadirEmail author
  • Masood Umer
  • Naveed Baloch
Orthopaedic Surgery



The use of a mega-endoprosthesis has become the method of choice for reconstruction after bone tumors. In this study, we sought to determine the functional outcome and complications associated with mega-endoprosthesis.


A retrospective review of the charts of 16 patients who had undergone resection of bone tumors followed by reconstruction with mega-endoprosthesis between 2006 and 2011 was performed. Functional evaluation was based on the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system. Complications of the procedures were also analyzed.


Eight men and eight women at an average age of 36.7 years were included in the study. The tumor involved lower limb in 14 patients and upper limb in 2 patients. The average MSTS functional score was 72.3 ± 15. Excellent results were achieved in six patients, good in five, moderate and fair in two each and poor in one. Complications occurred in eight patients. Two patients had aseptic loosening of the femoral component of total knee replacement. Flap necrosis occurred in two patients, both of whom required latissimus dorsi free flap for coverage of total knee prosthesis. One patient underwent revision of femoral component subsequent to knee dissociation. Local recurrence of tumor, patellar tendon rupture and foot drop occurred in one patient each.


Mega-endoprosthetic reconstruction in limb salvage provides good functional outcome in patients with bone tumors.


Mega-endoprosthesis Limb salvage surgery Bone tumors Functional outcome Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score 


Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    Buchman J (1965) Total femur and knee joint replacement with a vitallium endoprosthesis. Bull Hosp Joint Dis 26:21–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hillmann A, Hoffmann C, Gosheger G, Krakau H, Winkelmann W (1999) Malignant tumor of the distal part of the femur or the proximal part of the tibia: endoprosthetic replacement or rotationplasty. Functional outcome and quality-of-life measurements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81(4):462–468PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kawai A, Healey JH, Boland PJ, Athanasian EA, Jeon DG (1999) A rotating-hinge knee replacement for malignant tumors of the femur and tibia. J Arthroplasty 14(2):187–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Natarajan MV, Sivaseelam A, Rajkumar G, Hussain SH (2003) Custom megaprosthetic replacement for proximal tibial tumours. Int Orthop 27(6):334–337. doi: 10.1007/s00264-003-0484-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Natarajan MV, Sivaseelam A, Ayyappan S, Bose JC, Sampath Kumar M (2005) Distal femoral tumours treated by resection and custom mega-prosthetic replacement. Int Orthop 29(5):309–313. doi: 10.1007/s00264-005-0677-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tan PK, Tan MH (2009) Functional outcome study of mega-endoprosthetic reconstruction in limbs with bone tumour surgery. Ann Acad Med Singapore 38(3):192–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 Relat Res 286:241–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hattori H, Mibe J, Yamamoto K (2011) Modular megaprosthesis in metastatic bone disease of the femur. Orthopedics 34(12):e871–e876. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20111021-13 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palumbo BT, Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Cheong D, Pala E, Letson GD, Ruggieri P (2011) Advances in segmental endoprosthetic reconstruction for extremity tumors: a review of contemporary designs and techniques. Cancer Control 18(3):160–170Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 tumor of the distal end of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(3):595–603. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.C.01686 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilkins RM, Miller CM (2003) Reoperation after limb preservation surgery for sarcomas of the knee in children. Clin Orthop Relat Res 412:153–161. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000072466.53786.83 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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(6):938–942PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schiller C, Windhager R, Fellinger EJ, Salzer-Kuntschik M, Kaider A, Kotz R (1995) Extendable tumour endoprostheses for the leg in children. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77(4):608–614PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Biau D, Faure F, Katsahian S, Jeanrot C, Tomeno B, Anract P (2006) Survival of total knee replacement with a megaprosthesis after bone tumor resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(6):1285–1293. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00553 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ilyas I, Pant R, Kurar A, Moreau PG, Younge DA (2002) Modular megaprosthesis for proximal femoral tumors. Int Orthop 26(3):170–173. doi: 10.1007/s00264-002-0335-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bickels J, Meller I, Henshaw RM, Malawer MM (2000) Reconstruction of hip stability after proximal and total femur resections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 375:218–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jeon DG, Kim MS, Cho WH, Song WS, Lee SY (2007) Clinical outcome of osteosarcoma with primary total femoral resection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 457:176–182. doi: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802ba4af PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ward WG, Dorey F, Eckardt JJ (1995) Total femoral endoprosthetic reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 316:195–206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ruggieri P, Bosco G, Pala E, Errani C, Mercuri M (2010) Local recurrence, survival and function after total femur resection and megaprosthetic reconstruction for bone sarcomas. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(11):2860–2866. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1476-4 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayilvahanan N, Paraskumar M, Sivaseelam A, Natarajan S (2006) Custom mega-prosthetic replacement for proximal humeral tumours. Int Orthop 30(3):158–162. doi: 10.1007/s00264-005-0029-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fuhrmann RA, Roth A, Venbrocks RA (2000) Salvage of the upper extremity in cases of tumorous destruction of the proximal humerus. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 126(6):337–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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(8):1154–1165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwartz AJ, Kabo JM, Eilber FC, Eilber FR, Eckardt JJ (2010) Cemented endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal tibia: how long do they last? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(11):2875-2884. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1390-9 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cho WH, Song WS, Jeon DG, Kong CB, Kim JI, Lee SY (2012) Cause of infection in proximal tibial endoprosthetic reconstructions. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132(2):163–169. doi: 10.1007/s00402-011-1405-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryAga Khan University HospitalKarachiPakistan
  2. 2.Orthopaedic Surgery Department, Faculty Offices Opposite Community Health CentreAga Khan University HospitalKarachiPakistan

Personalised recommendations