Frontiers in oncology · 2024
Revision surgery for periprosthetic fracture of distal femur after endoprosthetic replacement of knee joint following resection of osteosarcoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jin Qing-Lin, Su Hao-Bin, Du Shao-Hua, Hou Chang-He, Lu Ming, Dai Shuang-Wu, Lei Zi-Xiong, Chen Wei, Li Hao-Miao
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Periprosthetic fracture (PPF) is one of the severe complications in patients with osteosarcoma and carries the risk of limb loss. This study describes the characteristics, treatment strategies, and outcomes of this complication.
METHODS: Patients were consecutively included who were treated at our institution between 2016 and 2020 with a PPF of distal femur. The treatment strategies included two types: 1) open reduction and internal fixation with plates and screws and 2) replacement with long-stem endoprosthesis and reinforcement with wire rope if necessary.
RESULTS: A total of 11 patients (mean age 12.2 years (9-14)) were included, and the mean follow-up period was 36.5 (21-54) months. Most fractures were caused by direct or indirect trauma (n = 8), and others (n = 3) underwent PPF without obvious cause. The first type of treatment was performed on four patients, and the second type was performed on seven patients. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 20 (17-23). All patients recovered from the complication, and limb preservation could be achieved.
CONCLUSION: PPF is a big challenge for musculoskeletal oncologists, particularly in younger patients. Additionally, PPF poses a challenge for orthopedic surgeons, as limb preservation should be an important goal. Hence, internal fixation with plates and endoprosthetic replacement are optional treatment strategies based on fracture type and patient needs.
METHODS: Patients were consecutively included who were treated at our institution between 2016 and 2020 with a PPF of distal femur. The treatment strategies included two types: 1) open reduction and internal fixation with plates and screws and 2) replacement with long-stem endoprosthesis and reinforcement with wire rope if necessary.
RESULTS: A total of 11 patients (mean age 12.2 years (9-14)) were included, and the mean follow-up period was 36.5 (21-54) months. Most fractures were caused by direct or indirect trauma (n = 8), and others (n = 3) underwent PPF without obvious cause. The first type of treatment was performed on four patients, and the second type was performed on seven patients. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 20 (17-23). All patients recovered from the complication, and limb preservation could be achieved.
CONCLUSION: PPF is a big challenge for musculoskeletal oncologists, particularly in younger patients. Additionally, PPF poses a challenge for orthopedic surgeons, as limb preservation should be an important goal. Hence, internal fixation with plates and endoprosthetic replacement are optional treatment strategies based on fracture type and patient needs.