Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR · 2019
How is the outcome of the Limb Preservation System™ for reconstruction of hip and knee?
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Smolle Maria Anna, Friesenbichler Joerg, Bergovec Marko, Gilg Magdalena, Maurer-Ertl Werner, Leithner Andreas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite tremendous advantages in the development and application of megaprostheses in tumour and revision surgery, complications are still not infrequently observed. Only two studies investigating the outcome of the LPS™ system in the proximal femur and distal femur/proximal tibia have been published thus far. Herein, mid-term implant survival rates one of the largest cohort of patients treated with the LPS™-system are presented aiming tp answer: 1) How is the outcome of the LPS™ system in the proximal femur and distal femur/proximal tibia? 2) Which factors are associated with altered implant survival? 3) What is the cumulative risk of complications according to Henderson?
HYPOTHESIS: The LPS™-system is associated with high complication rates that depend on implant site, with infections being most common.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients who received the LPS™-system at the proximal femur (n=31), distal femur (n=21) and proximal tibia (n=5) between 2004 and 2010 for oncological (n=40) or non-oncological (n=17) causes, were retrospectively included. Median follow-up was 5.0 years (range, 0-12.4 years). Complications were classified according to Henderson into instability/soft tissue failure (type 1), aseptic loosening (type 2), structural failure (type 3), periprosthetic infection (type 4), tumour progression (type 5). Competing-risk-analyses were applied to estimate implant survival with death as the competing event.
RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (45.6%) developed a complication, of whom 9 (29.0%) had a proximal femoral and 17 (65.4%) a distal femoral/proximal tibial implant. Type 4 complications were most common (n=11), followed by type 3 (n=6, including 2 yoke-fractures), type 1 and 2 (n=4 each), and type 5 (n=1). The only factor associated with the development of complications in the multivariate model was a distal femoral/proximal tibial implant (hazard-ratio: 7.418, 95% confidence-interval: 2.193-26.096, p=0.001), irrespective of reason for reconstruction and use of muscular flaps. The cumulative-incidence of failure including all complications was 34.3%, 40.7% and 67.1% at 3, 5 and 10 years, respectively.
DISCUSSION: The LPS™-system may be used for proximal femoral reconstructions both in the oncological and non-oncological setting. Rates of complications are higher in our cohort than reported in literature for other, comparable, megaprosthesis systems. Especially in the distal femur/proximal tibia, complication rates were high, partially attributable to the former implant design leading to fractures of the yoke-mechanism. As the implant has been remodelled after these issues became evident, there is no objection to use this megaprosthesis system today.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Observational Study.
HYPOTHESIS: The LPS™-system is associated with high complication rates that depend on implant site, with infections being most common.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients who received the LPS™-system at the proximal femur (n=31), distal femur (n=21) and proximal tibia (n=5) between 2004 and 2010 for oncological (n=40) or non-oncological (n=17) causes, were retrospectively included. Median follow-up was 5.0 years (range, 0-12.4 years). Complications were classified according to Henderson into instability/soft tissue failure (type 1), aseptic loosening (type 2), structural failure (type 3), periprosthetic infection (type 4), tumour progression (type 5). Competing-risk-analyses were applied to estimate implant survival with death as the competing event.
RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (45.6%) developed a complication, of whom 9 (29.0%) had a proximal femoral and 17 (65.4%) a distal femoral/proximal tibial implant. Type 4 complications were most common (n=11), followed by type 3 (n=6, including 2 yoke-fractures), type 1 and 2 (n=4 each), and type 5 (n=1). The only factor associated with the development of complications in the multivariate model was a distal femoral/proximal tibial implant (hazard-ratio: 7.418, 95% confidence-interval: 2.193-26.096, p=0.001), irrespective of reason for reconstruction and use of muscular flaps. The cumulative-incidence of failure including all complications was 34.3%, 40.7% and 67.1% at 3, 5 and 10 years, respectively.
DISCUSSION: The LPS™-system may be used for proximal femoral reconstructions both in the oncological and non-oncological setting. Rates of complications are higher in our cohort than reported in literature for other, comparable, megaprosthesis systems. Especially in the distal femur/proximal tibia, complication rates were high, partially attributable to the former implant design leading to fractures of the yoke-mechanism. As the implant has been remodelled after these issues became evident, there is no objection to use this megaprosthesis system today.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Observational Study.