Skip to main content
Log in

Komplikationsmanagement nach Resektion und Defektrekonstruktion hüftgelenknaher Tumoren

Management of complications following resection and defect reconstruction of tumors near the hip joint

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Tumoröse Destruktionen der periazetabulären Region und des proximalen Femurs können durch primäre, zumeist maligne Knochentumoren verursacht sein, sind aber ungleich häufiger die Folge metastastischer Läsionen. Unter allen Skelettabschnitten weist diese Region die höchste Rate pathologischer Frakturen auf.

Behandlungsmethoden

Fortgeschrittene Resektionstechniken, welche die onkologisch suffiziente Resektion selbst ausgedehnter Tumormanifestationen erlauben, und die Einführung moderner osteosynthetischer und endoprothetischer Rekonstruktionsmethoden für Becken und Femur, haben zu einer deutlichen Steigerung extremitätenerhaltender Eingriffe geführt, weisen aber auch eine Reihe typischer und schwerwiegender intra- und postoperativer Komplikationen auf.

Komplikationen

Neben der im Vergleich zur elektiven Hüftendoprothetik erhöhten Rate von Infekten, septischen/aseptischen Lockerungen, Luxationen, periprothetischen und pathologischen Frakturen und tiefen Becken-/Beinvenenthrombosen stellen die erhöhte intra- und postoperative Mortalität und das lokale Tumorrezidiv die schwerwiegendsten Komplikationen dar. Insgesamt weisen periazetabuläre Resektionen im Vergleich zur proximalen Femurresektion mit endoprothetischer Versorgung eine erhöhte Komplikationsrate auf.

Schlussfolgerungen

Um die Rate der intra- und postoperativen Komplikationen gering zu halten, sollte die Durchführung ausgedehnter kurativer und palliativer Resektionen muskuloskelettalen Tumorzentren mit ausgewiesener Expertise in osteosynthetischen und endoprothetischen Rekonstruktionsverfahren von Becken und Femur vorbehalten sein. Nur dort können eine effektive Komplikationsprophylaxe und – falls erforderlich – ein adäquates, interdisziplinäres Komplikationsmanagement sofort erfolgen.

Abstract

Background

Tumorous destruction of the periacetabular region and the proximal femur are a consequence of either primary malignant bone tumor manifestation or metastatic disease, which is observed much more frequently and occurs typically in these skeletal segments. Pathological fractures of the proximal femur and periacetabular regions of the pelvis have a high incidence and ultimately lead to severe pain and immobilization.

Treatment methods

Advanced resection techniques and different types of defect reconstruction, allowing for oncologically sufficient resection of extensive tumors have contributed to a marked increase in the limb salvage rate. However, these procedures are associated with an increasing rate of several, sometimes severe intraoperative and postoperative complications.

Complications

Compared to elective total hip arthroplasty, the rate of postoperative deep infections, dislocations, the incidence of pathological and periprosthetic fractures and the prevalence of deep vein thrombosis are increased with high rates of postoperative mortality and local tumor recurrence, being the most serious complications. Pelvic involvement and subsequent periacetabular resection have the highest complication rate when compared to proximal femur resection with endoprosthetic treatment.

Conclusion

In order to minimize the risk of these intraoperative and postoperative complications wide resection and advanced reconstruction as well as complicated palliative stabilization due to malignant bone tumor growth around the hip joint should be performed in musculoskeletal tumor centers with profound expertise in osteosynthetic and endoprosthetic reconstruction of the pelvis and the proximal femur. Only in specialized centers an effective, multidisciplinary emergency management of these complications and, more importantly, reliable prevention of complications can be ensured.

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.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Bickels J, Meller I, Henshaw RM et al (2000) Reconstruction of hip stability after proximal and total femur resections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 375:218–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bielack SS, Wulff B, Delling G et al (1995) Osteosarcoma of the trunk treated by multimodal therapy: experience of the Cooperative Osteosarcoma Study Group (COSS). Med Pediatr Oncol 24:6–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Duncan CP, Masri BA (1995) Fractures of the femur after hip replacement. Instr Course Lect 44:293–304

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC et al (1993) A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:241–246

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Flint MN, Griffin AM, Bell RS et al (2007) Two-stage revision of infected uncemented lower extremity tumor endoprostheses. J Arthroplasty 22:859–865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Funovics PT, Hipfl C, Hofstaetter JG et al (2011) Management of septic complications following modular endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur. Int Orthop 35:1437–1444

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gosheger G, Hillmann A, Lindner N et al (2001) Soft tissue reconstruction of megaprostheses using a trevira tube. Clin Orthop Relat Res 264–271

  8. Grimer RJ, Belthur M, Chandrasekar C et al (2002) Two-stage revision for infected endoprostheses used in tumor surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 395:193–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hardes J, Gebert C, Schwappach A et al (2006) Characteristics and outcome of infections associated with tumor endoprostheses. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126:289–296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hardes J, Von Eiff C, Streitbuerger A et al (2010) Reduction of periprosthetic infection with silver-coated megaprostheses in patients with bone sarcoma. J Surg Oncol 101:389–395

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jaiswal PK, Aston WJ, Grimer RJ et al (2008) Peri-acetabular resection and endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumours of the acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 90:1222–1227

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jeys LM, Grimer RJ, Carter SR et al (2005) Periprosthetic infection in patients treated for an orthopaedic oncological condition. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 87:842–849

    Google Scholar 

  13. McDonald DJ, Capanna R, Gherlinzoni F et al (1990) Influence of chemotherapy on perioperative complications in limb salvage surgery for bone tumors. Cancer 65:1509–1516

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Menendez LR, Ahlmann ER, Kermani C et al (2006) Endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplasms of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:46–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nathan SS, Simmons KA, Lin PP et al (2006) Proximal deep vein thrombosis after hip replacement for oncologic indications. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 88:1066–1070

    Google Scholar 

  16. Peterson CA, Lewallen DG (1996) Periprosthetic fracture of the acetabulum after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 78:1206–1213

    Google Scholar 

  17. Quinn RH, Drenga J (2006) Perioperative morbidity and mortality after reconstruction for metastatic tumors of the proximal femur and acetabulum. J Arthroplasty 21:227–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rossi G, Mavrogenis AF, Casadei R et al (2013) Embolisation of bone metastases from renal cancer. Radiol Med 118:291–302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Senchenkov A, Moran SL, Petty PM et al (2008) Predictors of complications and outcomes of external hemipelvectomy wounds: account of 160 consecutive cases. Ann Surg Oncol 15:355–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Thambapillary S, Dimitriou R, Makridis KG et al (2013) Implant longevity, complications and functional outcome following proximal femoral arthroplasty for musculoskeletal tumors: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 28:1381–1385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ueda T, Kakunaga S, Takenaka S et al (2013) Constrained total hip megaprosthesis for primary periacetabular tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:741–749

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Xie L, Guo W, Li Y et al (2012) Pathologic fracture does not influence local recurrence and survival in high-grade extremity osteosarcoma with adequate surgical margins. J Surg Oncol 106:820–825

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. K.-D. Schaser, I. Melcher, S. Märdian, C. Perka, R. Locher, P. Schwabe geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K.-D. Schaser.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schaser, KD., Melcher, I., Märdian, S. et al. Komplikationsmanagement nach Resektion und Defektrekonstruktion hüftgelenknaher Tumoren. Orthopäde 43, 92–102 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-013-2133-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-013-2133-x

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation