Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 473, Issue 3, pp 831–838 | Cite as

Frequent Complications and Severe Bone Loss Associated With the Repiphysis Expandable Distal Femoral Prosthesis

  • Cara A. Cipriano
  • Irina S. Gruzinova
  • Rachel M. Frank
  • Steven Gitelis
  • Walter W. Virkus
Symposium: 2013 Meetings of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society and the International Society of Limb Salvage



The treatment of choice for distal femur malignancies in skeletally immature patients remains controversial. An expandable endoprosthesis device (Repiphysis Limb Salvage System; Wright Medical Technology, Arlington, TN, USA) allows for limb preservation and noninvasive lengthening but has been associated with significant complications; however, the extent and implications of bone loss associated with this implant have not been reported.


Our goals were to report (1) the 2-year minimum clinical outcomes after placement of the Repiphysis expandable prosthesis for pediatric distal femur malignancies; (2) the complications associated with this prosthesis; (3) the failure rate of this prosthesis; and (4) the revision alternatives available for salvage procedures.


Between 2002 and 2010, one surgeon (SG) treated all skeletally immature patients (mean age, 10.1 years; range, 4.7–13.6 years) with distal femoral osteosarcoma using a Repiphysis expandable prosthesis. Of the 12 patients who met these criteria, two were excluded for death from disease before 2 years, and mean followup for the remaining 10 was 72 months (range, 26–119 months). Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for complications and clinical outcomes, as assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system. Radiographs at final followup were reviewed for bone loss and analyzed by the two senior authors (SG, WWV) to determine reconstruction options available for future revisions.


MSTS scores averaged 67%, and we observed 37 implant-related complications requiring a total of 15 reoperations. Six patients underwent implant revisions with aseptic loosening being the predominant mode of failure; ultimately, four of these were converted to adult modular oncology prostheses, and two underwent total femoral replacements. Bone loss in this series was severe in terms of femoral length, cortical thinning, and metadiaphyseal compromise, and most patients will not have sufficient bone stock to permit future revision using standard stem fixation.


The bone loss around the stem of this prosthesis limits subsequent revision options, often resulting in a total femoral prosthesis. Although the decision to use the Repiphysis device must be made on an individual basis, surgeons should recognize the potential for significant bone compromise limiting revision options and consider other options.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.



We appreciate the assistance of Jerome Loew MD, from the Department of Pathology at Rush University Medical Center, in selecting and interpreting the histologic images in Figure 4.


  1. 1.
    Baumgart R, Lenze U. Expandable endoprostheses in malignant bone tumors in children: indications and limitations. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2009;179:59–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beebe K, Benevenia J, Kaushal N, Uglialoro A, Patel N, Patterson F. Evaluation of a noninvasive expandable prosthesis in musculoskeletal oncology patients for the upper and lower limb. Orthopedics. 2010;33:396.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beebe KS, Uglialoro AD, Patel N, Benevenia J, Patterson FR. Mechanical failure of the Repiphysis expandable prosthesis: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:1250–1253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DiCaprio MR, Friedlaender GE. Malignant bone tumors: limb sparing versus amputation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11:25–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dotan A, Dadia S, Bickels J, Nirkin A, Flusser G, Issakov J, Neumann Y, Cohen I, Ben-Arush M, Kollender Y, Meller I. Expandable endoprosthesis for limb-sparing surgery in children: long-term results. J Child Orthop. 2010;4:391–400.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Finn HA, Simon MA. Limb-salvage surgery in the treatment of osteosarcoma in skeletally immature individuals. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;262:108–118.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forni C, Gaudenzi N, Zoli M, Manfrini M, Benedetti MG, Pignotti E, Chiari P. Living with rotationplasty–quality of life in rotationplasty patients from childhood to adulthood. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105:331–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gitelis S, Neel MD, Wilkins RM, Rao BN, Kelly CM, Yao TK. The use of a closed expandable prosthesis for pediatric sarcomas. Chir Organi Mov. 2003;88:327–333.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gottsauner-Wolf F, Kotz R, Knahr K, Kristen H, Ritschl P, Salzer M. Rotationplasty for limb salvage in the treatment of malignant tumors at the knee. A follow-up study of seventy patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73:1365–1375.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henderson ER, Pepper AM, Marulanda G, Binitie OT, Cheong D, Letson GD. Outcome of lower-limb preservation with an expandable endoprosthesis after bone tumor resection in children. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:537–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hillmann A, Hoffmann C, Gosheger G, Krakau H, Winkelmann W. 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. 1999;81:462–468.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hwang N, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Abudu A, Jeys LM. Early results of a non-invasive extendible prosthesis for limb-salvage surgery in children with bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:265–269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maheshwari AV, Bergin PF, Henshaw RM. Modes of failure of custom expandable repiphysis prostheses: a report of three cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:e72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nagarajan R, Neglia JP, Clohisy DR, Robison LL. Limb salvage and amputation in survivors of pediatric lower-extremity bone tumors: what are the long-term implications? J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4493–4501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neel MD, Wilkins RM, Rao BN, Kelley CM. Early multicenter experience with a noninvasive expandable prothesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;415:72–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nystrom LM, Morcuende JA. Expanding endoprosthesis for pediatric musculoskeletal malignancy: current concepts and results. Iowa Orthop J. 2010;30:141–149.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ottaviani G, Robert RS, Huh WW, Jaffe N. Functional, psychosocial and professional outcomes in long-term survivors of lower-extremity osteosarcomas: amputation versus limb salvage. Cancer Treat Res. 2009;152:421–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park DH, Jaiswal PK, Al-Hakim W, Aston WJ, Pollock RC, Skinner JA, Cannon SR, Briggs TW. The use of massive endoprostheses for the treatment of bone metastases. Sarcoma. 2007;2007:62151.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Puri A, Agarwal M. Facilitating rotationplasty. J Surg Oncol. 2007;95:351–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    REPIPHYSIS® Limb Salvage System for the Skeletally Immature. Available at: Accessed January 24, 2014.
  21. 21.
    Saghieh S, Abboud MR, Muwakkit SA, Saab R, Rao B, Haidar R. Seven-year experience of using Repiphysis expandable prosthesis in children with bone tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2010;55:457–463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sawamura C, Hornicek FJ, Gebhardt MC. Complications and risk factors for failure of rotationplasty: review of 25 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:1302–1308.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tang XD, Guo W, Yang RL, Yang Y, Ji T. [Limb salvage surgery for osteosarcoma around the knee in children and adolescent patients] [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2007;45:669–672.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Veenstra KM, Sprangers MA, van der Eyken JW, Taminiau AH. Quality of life in survivors with a Van Ness-Borggreve rotationplasty after bone tumour resection. J Surg Oncol. 2000;73:192–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winkelmann WW. Rotationplasty for tibial tumours. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:697.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cara A. Cipriano
    • 1
  • Irina S. Gruzinova
    • 1
  • Rachel M. Frank
    • 1
  • Steven Gitelis
    • 1
  • Walter W. Virkus
    • 2
  1. 1.Section of Orthopaedic Oncology, Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryRush University Medical CenterChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Indiana University Health Orthopedics and Sports MedicineIU Health PhysiciansIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations