This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chandrasekar, C. R. Articles by Buckley, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chandrasekar, C. R. Articles by Buckley, L.

Modular endoprosthetic replacement for tumours of the proximal femur

¹ The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital Oncology Service, Bristol Road South, Birmingham B31 2AP, UK.
² Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit University of Birmingham, Vincent Drive, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.

Correspondence should be sent to Mr R. J. Grimer; e-mail: rob.grimer{at}roh.nhs.uk

Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur may be required to treat primary bone tumours or destructive metastases either with impending or established pathological fracture. Modular prostheses are available off the shelf and can be adapted to most reconstructive situations for this purpose. We have assessed the clinical and functional outcome of using the METS (Stanmore Implants Worldwide) modular tumour prosthesis to reconstruct the proximal femur in 100 consecutive patients between 2001 and 2006. We compared the results with the published series for patients managed with modular and custom-made endoprosthetic replacements for the same conditions.

There were 52 males and 48 females with a mean age of 56.3 years (16 to 84) and a mean follow-up of 24.6 months (0 to 60). In 65 patients the procedure was undertaken for metastases, in 25 for a primary bone tumour, and in ten for other malignant conditions. A total of 46 patients presented with a pathological fracture, and 19 presented with failed fixation of a previous pathological fracture. The overall patient survival was 63.6% at one year and 23.1% at five years, and was significantly better for patients with a primary bone tumour than for those with metastatic tumour (82.3% vs 53.3%, respectively at one year (p = 0.003)). There were six early dislocations of which five could be treated by closed reduction. No patient needed revision surgery for dislocation. Revision surgery was required by six (6%) patients, five for pain caused by acetabular wear and one for tumour progression. Amputation was needed in four patients for local recurrence or infection.

The estimated five-year implant survival with revision as the endpoint was 90.7%. The mean Toronto Extremity Salvage score was 61% (51% to 95%). The implant survival and complications resulting from the use of the modular system were comparable to the published series of both custom-made and other modular proximal femoral implants.

We conclude that at intermediate follow-up the modular tumour prosthesis for proximal femur replacement provides versatility, a low incidence of implant-related complications and acceptable function for patients with metastatic tumours, pathological fractures and failed fixation of the proximal femur. It also functions as well as a custom-made endoprosthetic replacement.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. D. Sewell, B. G. I. Spiegelberg, S. A. Hanna, W. J. S. Aston, W. Bartlett, G. W. Blunn, L. A. David, S. R. Cannon, and T. W. R. Briggs Total femoral endoprosthetic replacement following excision of bone tumours J Bone Joint Surg Br, November 1, 2009; 91-B(11): 1513 - 1520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]