Radiographic assessment of distal femur cemented stems in tumor endoprostheses
- 475 Downloads
Distal femoral endoprosthesis (DFE) has become the optimal method of reconstruction in the skeletally mature patients treated for malignant bone tumor. Albeit literature has reported wide range of aseptic loosening in cemented components (6–32%), few authors showed that cement was not detrimental to long-term success of primary distal femoral implants possibly relating to cementing technique.
A series of consecutive of DFE (MRS and GMRS, Styker Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ) was retrospectively reviewed for evidence of loosening on plain radiographs. All prostheses had the standard straight 127-mm stem and a cemented polyethylene tibial component. Cementing technique involved reaming line to line to the selected stem size and cementing without pressurization. Radiographs were assessed by two independent blinded reviewers and scored for radiolucent zones (>1 mm) and graded as not loose, possibly, probable and definite loose. Furthermore, the final reamer/stem diameters, length of resection, tumor type, adjuvant treatment modalities, bushing exchange/revision surgery and infection rate were recorded.
There were 70 patients and none were lost to follow-up. The average radiographic follow-up was 7.2 years (58% had f/u >5 years). Examiner A found 89% of femoral components to be “Not Loose” and 11% (n = 6) “Possibly Loose”. Examiner B found 96% of femoral components to be “Not Loose” and 4% (n = 2) to be “Possibly Loose”. No components scored as probably or definitely loose. Two DFE stems were reported as “Possibly Loose” by both reviewers. No femoral stem required revisions for either loosening, femur fracture or metal failure. Although infection was frequent, there was no septic loosening.
Despite our study limitations, no radiographic evidence of loosening was found. Cementing distal femur prosthesis with a tight canal fit and with a thin and inconsistent cement mantle appears to be a viable option at short and medium term.
KeywordsTumor endoprostheses Cemented stems French paradox Sarcoma surgery
We would like to thank the Cedars Cancer Foundation, the McGill University Hospital Foundation and the Montreal General Hospital Foundation for their support. The authors would like to thank Ms. Cindy Wong RN and Mr. Firas Dandachli MD M.Sc. for their invaluable help in the conduction of this work. We would like also to acknowledge Dr. Michael Tanzer for his contribution to the study design.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Dr. Turcotte reports other from Stryker Canada, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Stavropoulos, Dr. Toreson and Dr. Alsultan have nothing to disclose.
- 4.Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Pala E, Dennis JA, Wooten R, Cheong D, Windhager R, Kotz RI, Mercuri M, Funovics PT, Hornicek FJ, Temple HT, Ruggieri P, Letson GD (2011) Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(5):418–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Henderson ER, O’Connor MI, Ruggieri P, Windhager R, Funovics PT, Gibbons CL, Guo W, Hornicek FJ, Temple HT, Letson GD (2014) Classification of failure of limb salvage after reconstructive surgery for bone tumours: a modified system Including biological and expandable reconstructions. Bone Joint J 96-B(11):1436–1440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Coathup MJ, Batta V, Pollock RC, Aston WJ, Cannon SR, Skinner JA, Briggs TW, Unwin PS, Blunn GW (2013) Long-term survival of cemented distal femoral endoprostheses with a hydroxyapatite-coated collar: a histological study and a radiographic follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1569–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Gruen TA, McNiece GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failures” of cemented stem-types femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27Google Scholar
- 39.Myers GJ, Abudu AT, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Grimer RJ (2007) Endoprosthetic replacement of the distal femur for bone tumours: long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(4):521–526. Erratum in: J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(5):706Google Scholar
- 45.Johnston RC, Fitzgerald RH Jr, Harris WH, Poss R, Müller ME, Sledge CB (1990) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement. A standard system of terminology for reporting results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72(2):161–168. No abstract available. Erratum in: J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991 Jul;73(6):952Google Scholar
- 49.Turcotte RE, Sim FH, Pritchard DJ, Chao EYS, Donati D (1991) Long term follow-up of Walldius hinged total knee arthroplasties. In: Langlais F, Tomeno B (eds) Limbs salvage—major reconstructions in oncologic and non-tumorous conditions. Springer, Berlin, pp 277–284Google Scholar