Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2020; 33(08): 818-824
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1688556
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Reconstruction with Custom Unicondylar Hemiarthroplasty following Tumor Resection: A Case Series and Review of the Literature

Joseph A. Ippolito
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey
,
Megan L. Campbell
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey
,
Brianna L. Siracuse 
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey
,
Joseph Benevenia
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

10 October 2018

18 March 2019

Publication Date:
08 May 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

For patients with tumors of the distal femur, options for limb salvage include tumor resection followed by reconstruction. While reconstruction commonly involves a distal femoral replacement, careful selection of patients with tumor involvement limited to a single condyle may be candidates for reconstruction with distal femur hemiarthroplasty. In these procedures, resection spares considerably more native anatomy. Three consecutive patients who underwent resection and reconstruction at the distal femur with custom unicondylar hemiarthroplasty are presented in this case series at a mean follow-up of 45 months (range, 26–78). In two cases, prostheses were utilized as a secondary procedure after failure of initial reconstruction. In one case, the custom prosthesis was utilized as the primary method of reconstruction. Mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society disease-specific scores were 26.7 (range, 25–28). All patients achieved a return to full weight bearing, activities of daily living, and functional range of motion. In appropriately selected patients with tumors of the distal femur, reconstruction with custom unicondylar hemiarthroplasty provides benefits including optimal function postoperatively via preservation of tumor-free bone and ligamentous structures. Additionally, maintenance of greater bone stock may confer benefits to patients with pathology at a high likelihood for recurrence and need for subsequent procedures.

Keywords

musculoskeletal - custom implant - distal femur
 

  • References

  • 1 Niu X, Xu H, Inwards CY. , et al. Primary bone tumors: epidemiologic comparison of 9200 patients treated at Beijing Ji Shui Tan Hospital, Beijing, China, with 10 165 patients at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015; 139 (09) 1149-1155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Toepfer A, Salzmann M, Schauwecker J, Gollwitzer H, Rechl H. [Primary malignant bone tumors]. Orthopade 2011; 40 (12) 1121-1142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lewis MM. An approach to the treatment of malignant bone tumors. Orthopedics 1985; 8 (05) 655-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Luetke A, Meyers PA, Lewis I, Juergens H. Osteosarcoma treatment - where do we stand? A state of the art review. Cancer Treat Rev 2014; 40 (04) 523-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Freeman AK, Sumathi VP, Jeys L. Primary malignant tumours of the bone. Surgery 2015; 33 (01) 26-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mankin HJ, Fogelson FS, Thrasher AZ, Jaffer F. Massive resection and allograft transplantation in the treatment of malignant bone tumors. N Engl J Med 1976; 294 (23) 1247-1255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Marcove RC. The treatment of malignant bone tumors by conservative surgery. Recent Results Cancer Res 1976; (54) 218-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Rougraff BT, Simon MA, Kneisl JS, Greenberg DB, Mankin HJ. Limb salvage compared with amputation for osteosarcoma of the distal end of the femur. A long-term oncological, functional, and quality-of-life study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994; 76 (05) 649-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Marmor L. The modular knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1973; (94) 242-248
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Inglis GS. Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. A follow-up of 3 to 9 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1984; 66 (05) 682-684
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI. Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (03) 519-525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Knutson K, Lewold S, Robertsson O, Lidgren L. The Swedish knee arthroplasty register. A nation-wide study of 30,003 knees 1976-1992. Acta Orthop Scand 1994; 65 (04) 375-386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Berger RA, Nedeff DD, Barden RM. , et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clinical experience at 6- to 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; (367) 50-60
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rose B, Bartlett W, Blunn G, Briggs T, Cannon S. Custom-made lateral femoral condyle replacement for traumatic bone loss: a case report. Knee 2010; 17 (06) 417-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Stuyts B, Peersman G, Thienpont E, Van den Eeden E, Van der Bracht H. Custom-made lateral femoral hemiarthroplasty for traumatic bone loss: a case report. Knee 2015; 22 (05) 435-439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hillman A, Hoffman C, Gosheger G, Krakau H, Winkelmann W. Malignant tumor of the distal part of the femur or the proximal part of the tibia: endoprosthetic replacement or rotationplasty. Functional outcome and quality-of-life measurements. J Bone Joint Surg 1999; 81 (04) 462-468
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bickels J, Wittig JC, Kollender Y. , et al. Distal femur resection with endoprosthetic reconstruction: a long-term followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (400) 225-235
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Aponte-Tinao LA, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL, Farfalli GL. What are the risk factors and management options for infection after reconstruction with massive bone allografts?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (03) 669-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Clohisy DR, Mankin HJ. Osteoarticular allografts for reconstruction after resection of a musculoskeletal tumor in the proximal end of the tibia. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994; 76 (04) 549-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dick HM, Strauch RJ. Infection of massive bone allografts. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; (306) 46-53
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hernigou P, Delepine G, Goutallier D. [Infections after massive bone allografts in surgery of bone tumors of the limbs. Incidence, contributing factors, therapeutic problems]. Rev Chir Orthop Repar Appar Mot 1991; 77 (01) 6-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rödl RW, Ozaki T, Hoffmann C, Böttner F, Lindner N, Winkelmann W. Osteoarticular allograft in surgery for high-grade malignant tumours of bone. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2000; 82 (07) 1006-1010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bus MP, van de Sande MA, Taminiau AH, Dijkstra PD. Is there still a role for osteoarticular allograft reconstruction in musculoskeletal tumour surgery? A long-term follow-up study of 38 patients and systematic review of the literature. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B (04) 522-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Toy PC, White JR, Scarborough MT, Enneking WF, Gibbs CP. Distal femoral osteoarticular allografts: long-term survival, but frequent complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (11) 2914-2923
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ogilvie CM, Crawford EA, Hosalkar HS, King JJ, Lackman RD. Long-term results for limb salvage with osteoarticular allograft reconstruction. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (10) 2685-2690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Muscolo DL, Ayerza MA, Aponte-Tinao LA, Abalo E, Farfalli G. Unicondylar osteoarticular allografts of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (10) 2137-2142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bianchi G, Sambri A, Sebastiani E, Caldari E, Donati D. Is unicondylar osteoarticular allograft still a viable option for reconstructions around the knee?. Knee 2016; 23 (04) 692-697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bertrand TE, Cruz A, Binitie O, Cheong D, Letson GD. Do surgical margins affect local recurrence and survival in extremity, nonmetastatic, high-grade osteosarcoma?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (03) 677-683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Li X, Moretti VM, Ashana AO, Lackman RD. Impact of close surgical margin on local recurrence and survival in osteosarcoma. Int Orthop 2012; 36 (01) 131-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Bispo Júnior RZ, Camargo OP. Prognostic factors in the survival of patients diagnosed with primary non-metastatic osteosarcoma with a poor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clinics (São Paulo) 2009; 64 (12) 1177-1186
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard DJ, Gill RH, Dodd CA, Murray DM. Sagittal plane kinematics of a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 10 years: a comparative in vivo fluoroscopic analysis. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (05) 590-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (11) 1506-1511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Haijie L, Dasen L, Tao J, Yi Y, Xiaodong T, Wei G. Implant survival and complication profiles of endoprostheses for treating tumor around the knee in adults: a systematic review of the literature over the past 30 years. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (04) 1275-1287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Xu S, Yu X, Xu M. , et al. Limb function and quality of life after various reconstruction methods according to tumor location following resection of osteosarcoma in distal femur. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014; 15: 453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Zhang C, Hu J, Zhu K, Cai T, Ma X. Survival, complications and functional outcomes of cemented megaprostheses for high-grade osteosarcoma around the knee. Int Orthop 2018; 42 (04) 927-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80 (05) 862-865
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Brown NM, Sheth NP, Davis K. , et al. Total knee arthroplasty has higher postoperative morbidity than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (8, Suppl): 86-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Lombardi Jr AV, Berend KR, Walter CA, Aziz-Jacobo J, Cheney NA. Is recovery faster for mobile-bearing unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (06) 1450-1457
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Walton NP, Jahromi I, Lewis PL, Dobson PJ, Angel KR, Campbell DG. Patient-perceived outcomes and return to sport and work: TKA versus mini-incision unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2006; 19 (02) 112-116
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Goh GS, Bin Abd Razak HR, Tay DK, Chia SL, Lo NN, Yeo SJ. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty achieves greater flexion with no difference in functional outcome, quality of life, and satisfaction vs total knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 55 years. A propensity score-matched cohort analysis. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (02) 355-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Siman H, Kamath AF, Carrillo N, Harmsen WS, Pagnano MW, Sierra RJ. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs total knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthritis in patients older than 75 years: comparable reoperation, revision, and complication rates. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (06) 1792-1797
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kulshrestha V, Datta B, Kumar S, Mittal G. Outcome of unicondylar knee arthroplasty vs total knee arthroplasty for early medial compartment arthritis: a randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (05) 1460-1469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Nerhus TK, Heir S, Svege I. , et al. Time-dependent improvement in functional outcome following Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A prospective longitudinal multicenter study involving 96 patients. Acta Orthop 2012; 83 (01) 46-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 van der List JP, Zuiderbaan HA, Pearle AD. Why do medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties fail today?. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (05) 1016-1021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Callahan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS. Patient outcomes following unicompartmental or bicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 1995; 10 (02) 141-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar