Patients with Revision Modern Megaprostheses of the Distal Femur Have Improved Disease-Specific and Health-Related Outcomes Compared to Those with Primary Replacements

Abstract

We asked whether there would be any difference between primary and revision modern cemented fixed hinge megaprosthesis of the distal femur in function and activity-related outcomes following treatment of a bone tumor. An identical custom-made fixed hinge cemented megaprosthesis with a hydroxyapatite collar was used in all cases. The main outcomes were joint-specific function, disease-specific activity, and health-related quality of life. Implant survival was also evaluated. Patients in the revision group performed slightly better than patients in the primary group on disease-specific (Toronto Extremity Salvage Score, p = 0.033; Musculoskeletal Tumor Society, p = 0.072) and health-related outcomes (Short Form 36 [SF-36] physical component, p = 0.085; SF-36 mental component, p = 0.069) but not on joint-specific outcomes (Knee Society Score, p = 0.94). The cumulative probabilities of revision for any reason were 14.5% (7–25%) at 5 years with no statistically significant difference between primary and revision procedures (p = 0.77). In conclusion, patients undergoing a revision have similar joint-specific functional outcome but improved disease-specific and health-related outcomes. Implant survival are similar between groups.

Keywords

megaprosthesis - revision - function - quality of life - survival

Note

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

• References

• 1 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 2016; 66 (01) 7-30
• 2 Damron TA, Ward WG, Stewart A. Osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and Ewing's sarcoma: National Cancer Data Base Report. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 459 (459) 40-47
• 3 ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group. Bone sarcomas: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2014; 25 (Suppl. 03) iii113-iii123
• 4 Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Pala E. , et al. Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (05) 418-429
• 5 Mittermayer F, Windhager R, Dominkus M. , et al. Revision of the Kotz type of tumour endoprosthesis for the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (03) 401-406
• 6 Wirganowicz PZ, Eckardt JJ, Dorey FJ, Eilber FR, Kabo JM. Etiology and results of tumor endoprosthesis revision surgery in 64 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; (358) 64-74
• 7 Biau D, Faure F, Katsahian S, Jeanrot C, Tomeno B, Anract P. Survival of total knee replacement with a megaprosthesis after bone tumor resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (06) 1285-1293
• 8 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 13-14
• 9 Davis AM, Wright JG, Williams JI, Bombardier C, Griffin A, Bell RS. Development of a measure of physical function for patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma. Qual Life Res 1996; 5 (05) 508-516
• 10 Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM. The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ 1993; 2 (03) 217-227
• 11 Biau DJ, Latouche A, Porcher R. Competing events influence estimated survival probability: when is Kaplan-Meier analysis appropriate?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 462 (462) 229-233
• 12 Prentice RL, Kalbfleisch JD, Peterson Jr AV, Flournoy N, Farewell VT, Breslow NE. The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks. Biometrics 1978; 34 (04) 541-554
• 13 Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 53 (282) 448-457
• 14 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Core Team. R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2013. Vienna, Austria. Available at: http://www.R-project.org . Accessed July 1, 2016
• 15 Baker F, Denniston M, Haffer SC, Liberatos P. Change in health-related quality of life of newly diagnosed cancer patients, cancer survivors, and controls. Cancer 2009; 115 (13) 3024-3033
• 16 Mitchell AJ, Ferguson DW, Gill J, Paul J, Symonds P. Depression and anxiety in long-term cancer survivors compared with spouses and healthy controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14 (08) 721-732
• 17 Greidanus NV, Peterson RC, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Quality of life outcomes in revision versus primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (04) 615-620
• 18 Patil S, Garbuz DS, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP. Quality of life outcomes in revision vs primary total hip arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (04) 550-553
• 19 Myers GJ, Abudu AT, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Grimer RJ. Endoprosthetic replacement of the distal femur for bone tumours: long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89 (04) 521-526
• 20 Ong KL, Lau E, Suggs J, Kurtz SM, Manley MT. Risk of subsequent revision after primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (11) 3070-3076