Abstract
Purpose
Little data is available about the incidence and especially the management of hip dislocation following the implantation of modular tumor prostheses of the proximal femur. In this retrospective single-centre study we assessed the incidence of hip dislocation following implantation of a proximal femoral modular prosthesis as well as the success of the subsequent surgical or non-surgical treatment in tumor patients.
Methods
Between 1982 and 2008, 166 tumor patients received a modular prosthesis of the proximal femur at our institution. The average age at the time of surgery was 50 ± 20 years (range, six to 84 years). An additional pelvic reconstruction was done in 14 patients. An artificial band for soft tissue reconstruction of the hip was used in 19 patients. The average time of follow-up was 46 ± 64 months (range, one to 277 months).
Results
The overall dislocation rate after proximal femoral replacement was 13 % after a mean time of seven ± eight months (range, 0.3–33 months) after surgery. Between 1982 and 1986 the dislocation rate was 33 % and declined to 9 % in subsequent years (1987–2008). Patients who had received an additional pelvic reconstruction had a three fold higher dislocation rate (p <0.05). Patients with closed reduction had a 58 % (eight of 12) re-dislocation rate compared to 11 % (one of nine) for open reduction (p = 0.0357).
Conclusions
Dislocation of a modular prosthesis of the proximal femur is a common complication, especially in cases with additional pelvic resection with extensive bone and soft-tissue defects. Open surgical management may be more effective in preventing re-dislocation than closed reduction and bracing alone.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chandrasekar CR, Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Abudu AT, Buckley L (2009) Modular endoprosthetic replacement for tumours of the proximal femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:108–112. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20448
Kotz RI (2014) Progress in musculoskeletal oncology from 1922–2012. Int Orthop 38:1113–1122. doi:10.1007/s00264-014-2315-0
Tunn PU, Pomraenke D, Goerling U, Hohenberger P (2008) Functional outcome after endoprosthetic limb-salvage therapy of primary bone tumours–a comparative analysis using the MSTS score, the TESS and the RNL index. Int Orthop 32:619–625. doi:10.1007/s00264-007-0388-8
Kabukcuoglu Y, Grimer RJ, Tillman RM, Carter SR (1999) Endoprosthetic replacement for primary malignant tumors of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 358:8–14
Gosheger G, Gebert C, Ahrens H, Streitbuerger A, Winkelmann W, Hardes J (2006) Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:164–171. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000223978.36831.39
Menendez LR, Ahlmann ER, Kermani C, Gotha H (2006) Endoprosthetic Reconstruction for Neoplasms of the Proximal Femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 450:46–51. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000229332.91158.05
Zehr RJ, Enneking WF, Scarborough MT (1996) Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 322:207–223
Malkani AL, Settecerri JJ, Sim FH, Chao EY, Wallrichs SL (1995) Long-term results of proximal femoral replacement for non-neoplastic disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77:351–356
Alberton GM, High WA, Morrey BF (2002) Dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty : an analysis of risk factors and treatment options. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A:1788–1792
Parvizi J, Tarity TD, Slenker N, Wade F, Trappler R, Hozack WJ, Sim FH (2007) Proximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1036–1043. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00241
Parvizi J, Sim FH (2004) Proximal femoral replacements with megaprostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:169–175
Finstein JL, King JJ, Fox EJ, Ogilvie CM, Lackman RD (2007) Bipolar proximal femoral replacement prostheses for musculoskeletal neoplasms. Clin Orthop Relat Res 459:66–75. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e31804f5474
Donati D, Zavatta M, Gozzi E, Giacomini S, Campanacci L, Mercuri M (2001) Modular prosthetic replacement of the proximal femur after resection of a bone tumour a long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:1156–1160
Windhager R, Karner J, Kutschera HP, Polterauer P, Salzer-Kuntschik M, Kotz R (1996) Limb salvage in periacetabular sarcomas: review of 21 consecutive cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 331:265–276
Rudert M, Holzapfel BM, Pilge H, Rechl H, Gradinger R (2012) Partial pelvic resection (internal hemipelvectomy) and endoprosthetic replacement in periacetabular tumors. Oper Orthop Traumatol 24:196–214. doi:10.1007/s00064-012-0161-z
Fisher NE, Patton JT, Grimer RJ, Porter D, Jeys L, Tillman RM, Abudu A, Carter SR (2011) Ice-cream cone reconstruction of the pelvis: a new type of pelvic replacement: early results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93:684–688. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B5.25608
Masterson EL, Ferracini R, Griffin AM, Wunder JS, Bell RS (1998) Capsular replacement with synthetic mesh: effectiveness in preventing postoperative dislocation after wide resection of proximal femoral tumors and prosthetic reconstruction. J Arthroplast 13:860–866
Gottsauner-Wolf F, Egger EL, Giurea A, Antosch M, Olsen D, Rock MG, Sim FH (1999) Biologic attachment of an allograft bone and tendon transplant to a titanium prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 358:101–110
Gottsauner-Wolf F, Egger EL, Schultz FM, Sim FH, Chao EY (1994) Tendons attached to prostheses by tendon-bone block fixation: an experimental study in dogs. J Orthop Res 12:814–821. doi:10.1002/jor.1100120609
Dominkus M, Sabeti M, Toma C, Abdolvahab F, Trieb K, Kotz RI (2006) Reconstructing the extensor apparatus with a new polyester ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:328–334. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000229368.42738.b6
Gosheger G, Hillmann A, Lindner N, Rödl R, Hoffmann C, Bürger H, Winkelmann W (2001) Soft tissue reconstruction of megaprostheses using a trevira tube. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:264-271
Trieb K, Blahovec H, Brand G, Sabeti M, Dominkus M, Kotz R (2004) In vivo and in vitro cellular ingrowth into a new generation of artificial ligaments. Eur Surg Res 36:148–151. doi:10.1159/000077256
Kotz R, Dominkus M, Zettl T, Ritschl P, Windhager R, Gadner H, Zielinski C, Salzer-Kuntschik M (2002) Advances in bone tumour treatment in 30 years with respect to survival and limb salvage. A single institution experience. Int Orthop 26:197–202. doi:10.1007/s00264-002-0365-1
Meek RM, Allan DB, McPhillips G, Kerr L, Howie CR (2008) Late dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Med Res 6:17–23. doi:10.3121/cmr.2008.770
Mahomed NN, Barrett JA, Katz JN, Phillips CB, Losina E, Lew RA, Guadagnoli E, Harris WH, Poss R, Baron JA (2003) Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A:27–32
Schneiderbauer MM, Sierra RJ, Schleck C, Harmsen WS, Scully SP (2005) Dislocation rate after hip hemiarthroplasty in patients with tumor-related conditions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1810–1815. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02830
Howie DW, Holubowycz OT, Middleton R (2012) Large femoral heads decrease the incidence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:1095–1102. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00570
Conflict of interest
The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for this study. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Puchner, S.E., Funovics, P.T., Hipfl, C. et al. Incidence and management of hip dislocation in tumour patients with a modular prosthesis of the proximal femur. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 38, 1677–1684 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2376-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-014-2376-0