Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 88-B, Issue 11, 1487-1491.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B11.18038  
Copyright © 2006 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ahlmann, E. R.
Right arrow Articles by Menendez, L. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ahlmann, E. R.
Right arrow Articles by Menendez, L. R.

Intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction for diaphyseal bone tumours

E. R. Ahlmann, MD, Orthopaedic Oncology Fellow1; and L. R. Menendez, MD, FACS, Professor, Orthopaedic Surgeon2

1 Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center, 1200 N. State Street, GNH 3900, Los Angeles, California 90033, USA.
2 University of Southern, California University Hospital, 1510 San Pablo Street, Suite, 634, Los Angeles, California, 90033, USA.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr E. R. Ahlmann; e-mail: ahlmann2002{at}yahoo.com

Custom-made intercalary endoprostheses may be used for the reconstruction of diaphyseal defects following the resection of bone tumours. The aim of this study was to determine the survival of intercalary endoprostheses with a lap joint design, and to evaluate the clinical results, complications and functional outcome. We retrospectively reviewed six consecutive patients, three of whom underwent limb salvage with intercalary endoprostheses of the tibia, two of the femur, and one of the humerus. Their mean age was 42 years (28 to 64). The mean follow-up was 21.6 months (9 to 58). The humeral prosthesis required revision at 14 months owing to aseptic loosening. There were no implant-related failures. Musculoskeletal Tumour Society functional outcome scores indicated that patients achieved 90% of premorbid function.

Custom intercalary endoprostheses result in reconstructions comparable with, if not better than, those of allografts. Using this design of implant reduces the incidence of early complications and difficulties experienced with previous versions.






(c) British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery All Rights Reserved
Registered charity no: 209299     Print ISSN: 0301-620X
Hip, Knee, Trauma, Upper limb, Foot & Ankle, Paediatrics, Oncology, Spine, Arthroplasty, General