Do Early Results of Proximal Humeral Allograft-Prosthetic Composite Reconstructions Persist at 5-year Followup?

被引:23
作者
El Beaino, Marc [1 ]
Liu, Jiayong [2 ]
Lewis, Valerae O. [1 ]
Lin, Patrick P. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Orthopaed Oncol, Unit 1448,1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Peking Univ, Canc Hosp, Dept Bone & Soft Tissue Tumor, Beijing, Peoples R China
关键词
RESECTION;
D O I
10.1097/CORR.0000000000000354
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
Background Insufficiency of the rotator cuff is a major problem after resections of proximal humeral tumors and can limit shoulder motion despite preservation of the deltoid muscle and axillary nerve. Allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction offers one method to reattach the rotator cuff tendons and has been successful in small studies with short followup. However, data are lacking with regard to implant durability, changes in Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores over time, and delayed complications with extended followup. Questions/purposes (1) What is the cumulative incidence of allograft-prosthetic composite revision surgery 5 years after the procedure? (2) What are the early-and intermediate-term MSTS scores of allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction of the shoulder? (3) What are the complications of allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction? Methods Twenty-one patients underwent allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction after tumor resection of the proximal humerus between 2000 and 2015. Six patients who were lost to followup were not included. All patients had malignant or aggressive benign tumors that could be treated with a wide intraarticular approach preserving the deltoid muscle, axillary nerve, and glenoid. Cumulative incidence of implant revision was calculated with death of the patient as a competing risk. Minimum followup was 24 months (with the exception of one patient who died at 22 months), and median followup was 97 months (range, 20-198 months). The upper extremity MSTS score was used to assess function. Various complications were identified from radiographs and charts. Results The cumulative risk of implant revision was 10.1% at 5 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6%-28.0%). Mean MSTS scores were 86% (6SD 9%) at 1 year and 78% (6SD 13%) at 5 years (mean difference 6SD 9% 614%, p = 0.015). Mean active forward elevation was 101 degrees (6SD 33 degrees) at 1 year and 92 degrees (6SD 34 degrees) at 5 years (mean difference 6SD 8 degrees 6 36 degrees, p = 0.41). Notable adverse events included progressive radiographic superior subluxation > 1 cm after 12 months followup (12 of 21 patients), delayed union > 12 months (10 of 21 patients), resorption of the greater tuberosity (nine of 21 patients), and aseptic loosening (three of 21 patients). Conclusions At intermediate 5-year followup, allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction of the proximal humerus has an acceptable overall MSTS score and a low incidence of implant revision, but loss of patients to followup and exclusion from the study likely make the results seem better than they actually are. The MSTS score deteriorates between 1 and 5 years. Decreased active forward elevation is not likely to be the sole reason for worsening MSTS scores. A variety of delayed complications including delayed union, resorption of the greater tuberosity, and superior subluxation occurs frequently and may contribute to overall scores. Future studies that compare allograft-prosthetic composites against other forms of reconstruction should attempt to control for possible selection bias and have sufficiently long followup to detect the deterioration of MSTS scores that occur with time. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study.
引用
收藏
页码:758 / 765
页数:8
相关论文
共 13 条
  • [1] Allograft-Prosthesis Composite Reconstruction of the Proximal Part of the Humerus Functional Outcome and Survivorship
    Abdeen, Ayesha
    Hoang, Bang H.
    Athanasian, Edward A.
    Morris, Carol D.
    Boland, Patrick J.
    Healey, John H.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2009, 91A (10) : 2406 - 2415
  • [2] Functional outcome following endoprosthetic reconstruction of the proximal humerus
    Cannon, Christopher P.
    Paraliticci, Giovanni U.
    Lin, Patrick P.
    Lewis, Valerae O.
    Yasko, Alan W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2009, 18 (05) : 705 - 710
  • [3] Croci A T, 2000, Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo, V55, P169
  • [4] Donati D, 2000, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P186
  • [5] ENNEKING WF, 1993, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P241
  • [6] Salvage of the upper extremity in cases of tumorous destruction of the proximal humerus
    Fuhrmann, RA
    Roth, A
    Venbrocks, RA
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CANCER RESEARCH AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2000, 126 (06) : 337 - 344
  • [7] Ippolito V, 2003, Chir Organi Mov, V88, P165
  • [8] Allograft-prosthetic composite reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for reconstruction of proximal humerus tumor resections
    King, Joseph J.
    Nystrom, Lukas M.
    Reimer, Nickolas B.
    Gibbs, C. Parker, Jr.
    Scarborough, Mark T.
    Wright, Thomas W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2016, 25 (01) : 45 - 54
  • [9] Manili M, 2002, Chir Organi Mov, V87, P25
  • [10] Mankin HJ, 1996, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P86