PROSTHETIC RECONSTRUCTION OF THE PROXIMAL FEMUR AFTER RESECTION FOR BONE-TUMORS

被引：55

作者：

MORRIS, HG ^{[1
]}

CAPANNA, R ^{[1
]}

DELBEN, M ^{[1
]}

CAMPANACCI, D ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] UNIV BOLOGNA,IST ORTOPED RIZZOLI,ORTHOPAED CLIN 1,I-40136 BOLOGNA,ITALY

来源：

JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY | 1995年 / 10卷 / 03期

关键词：

FEMORAL RECONSTRUCTION; TUMOR; ENDOPROSTHESIS; GRADE;

D O I：

10.1016/S0883-5403(05)80177-9

中图分类号：

R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学（修复外科学）];

学科分类号：

摘要：

Thirty-one cases of endoprosthetic proximal femoral reconstruction after resection for bone tumors are reported. The minimum follow-up period was 2 years (average, 63 months). There were two local recurrences, two deaths from pulmonary metastases, two postoperative infections (1 superficial and 1 deep), both responding to therapy, one postoperative dislocation of a bipolar endoprosthesis, and two cases of loosening of acetabular cups on the same patient. Clinical results (Enneking grade) showed 27% E, 56% G, 14% F, and 3% P. Diaphyseal remodeling results (Rizzoli grade) were 29% A, 6% B, 49% C, 10% D, and 6% E. Anchorage (International Society of Limb Salvage grade) was assessed as 97% E and 3% F, whereas interface (International Society of Limb Salvage grade) was 100% E. Hip (bipolar) articulation was graded as 30% E, 56% G, 11% F, and 3% P. Initial rigid stabilization of the stem with cross-fixation screws allows for excellent bone ingrowth, but presents the problem of proximal cortical atrophy. Bipolar hip components are easy to insert and offer greater inherent stability and so are to be recommended for use in tumor surgery. The results suggest good medium- to long-term results with respect to wear. A new radiographic grading system is presented for bipolar arthroplasty. Survivorship of the femoral component in this series is 100% at a maximum follow-up period of 8 years.

引用

页码：293 / 299

页数：7

共 29 条

[11]

Johnson ME, Mankin HJ, Reconstruction after resection of tumours involving the proximal femur, Orthop Clin North Am, 22, (1991)

[12]

Khong KS, Chao EYS, Sim FH, Long term performance of custom prosthetic replacement for neoplastic disease of the proximal femur, New developments for limb salvage in musculoskeletal tumours, (1989)

[13]

Markel MD, Gottsauner-Wolf F, Rock MG, Et al., A mechanical comparison of six methods of proximal femoral replacement, Complications of limb salvage, (1991)

[14]

Sim FH, Chao EYS, Hip salvage by proximal femoral replacement, J Bone Joint Surg, 63 B, (1981)

[15]

Johnsson R, Carlsson A, Kisch K, Et al., Function following mega total hip arthroplasty compared with total hip arthroplasty and healthy matched controls, Clin Orthop, 192, (1985)

[16]

Markhede G, Stener B, Function after removal of various hip and thigh muscles for extirpation of tumours, Acta Orthop Scand, 52, (1981)

[17]

Zehr RJ, Heare T, Enneking WF, Allograft-prosthesis composite vs megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction, Complications of limb salvage, (1991)

[18]

Bobyn JD, Mortimer ES, Glassman AH, Et al., Producing and avoiding stress shielding: laboratory and clinical observations of noncemented total hip arthroplasty, Clin Orthop, 274, (1992)

[19]

Hua J, Walker PS, A comparison of cortical strain following cemented and uncemented proximal and distal femoral replacement, Complications of limb salvage, (1991)

[20]

Sumner D, Galante JO, Determinants of stress shielding: design versus materials versus interface, Clin Orthop, 274, (1992)

← 1 2 3 →