Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Orthopaedics 5/2010

01-06-2010 | Original Paper

Proximal femoral replacements for metastatic bone disease: financial implications for sarcoma units

Authors: Robert U. Ashford, Sammy A. Hanna, Derek H. Park, Rob C. Pollock, John A. Skinner, Timothy W. R. Briggs, Stephen R. Cannon

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 5/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Metastatic pathological fractures of the proximal femur are increasingly treated by endoprosthetic proximal femoral replacement. We report the results and the costs incurred performing these procedures at our supra-regional sarcoma unit. Sixty-two patients underwent 63 proximal femoral replacements for metastatic bone disease over a seven-year period. Breast cancer was the most common primary pathology. One patient underwent a revision procedure for infection. Twenty-two patients suffered dislocations, most commonly those undergoing a conventional arthroplasty articulation. The estimated cost of a proximal femoral replacement is £18,002 at our centre. Less than half of this is reimbursed under Payment by Results. Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal femur is an effective treatment of metastases, but is poorly reimbursed under current funding arrangements.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference British Orthopaedic Association (2001) Metastatic bone disease: a guide to good practice. British Orthopaedic Association, London British Orthopaedic Association (2001) Metastatic bone disease: a guide to good practice. British Orthopaedic Association, London
2.
go back to reference Farid Y, Lin PP, Lewis VO, Yasko AW (2006) Endoprosthetic and allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction of the proximal femur for bone neoplasms. Clin Orthop Relat Res (442):223–229 Farid Y, Lin PP, Lewis VO, Yasko AW (2006) Endoprosthetic and allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction of the proximal femur for bone neoplasms. Clin Orthop Relat Res (442):223–229
3.
go back to reference Gainor BJ, Buchert P (1983) Fracture healing in metastatic bone disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res (178):297–302 Gainor BJ, Buchert P (1983) Fracture healing in metastatic bone disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res (178):297–302
4.
go back to reference Gerrand CH, Currie D, Grigoris P, Reid R, Hamblen DL (1999) Prosthetic reconstruction of the femur for primary bone sarcoma. Int Orthop 23(5):286–290CrossRefPubMed Gerrand CH, Currie D, Grigoris P, Reid R, Hamblen DL (1999) Prosthetic reconstruction of the femur for primary bone sarcoma. Int Orthop 23(5):286–290CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Pynsent PB (1997) The cost-effectiveness of limb salvage for bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg 79-B(4):558–561CrossRef Grimer RJ, Carter SR, Pynsent PB (1997) The cost-effectiveness of limb salvage for bone tumours. J Bone Joint Surg 79-B(4):558–561CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Heisel C, Kinkel S, Bernd L, Ewerbeck V (2006) Megaprostheses for the treatment of malignant bone tumours of the lower limbs. Int Orthop 30(6):452–457CrossRefPubMed Heisel C, Kinkel S, Bernd L, Ewerbeck V (2006) Megaprostheses for the treatment of malignant bone tumours of the lower limbs. Int Orthop 30(6):452–457CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Menendez LR, Ahlmann ER, Kermani C, Gotha H (2006) Endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplasms of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res (450):46–51 Menendez LR, Ahlmann ER, Kermani C, Gotha H (2006) Endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplasms of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res (450):46–51
8.
go back to reference Ogilvie CM, Wunder JS, Ferguson PC, Griffin AM, Bell RS (2004) Functional outcome of endoprosthetic proximal femoral replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res (426):44–48 Ogilvie CM, Wunder JS, Ferguson PC, Griffin AM, Bell RS (2004) Functional outcome of endoprosthetic proximal femoral replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res (426):44–48
9.
go back to reference Orlic D, Smerdelj M, Kolundzic R, Bergovec M (2006) Lower limb salvage surgery: modular endoprosthesis in bone tumour treatment. Int Orthop 30(6):458–464CrossRefPubMed Orlic D, Smerdelj M, Kolundzic R, Bergovec M (2006) Lower limb salvage surgery: modular endoprosthesis in bone tumour treatment. Int Orthop 30(6):458–464CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Park DH, Jaiswal PK, Al-Hakim W, Aston WJ, Pollock RC, Skinner JA, Cannon SR, Briggs TW (2007) The use of massive endoprostheses for the treatment of bone metastases. Sarcoma 2007:62151 Park DH, Jaiswal PK, Al-Hakim W, Aston WJ, Pollock RC, Skinner JA, Cannon SR, Briggs TW (2007) The use of massive endoprostheses for the treatment of bone metastases. Sarcoma 2007:62151
11.
go back to reference Sarahrudi K, Hora K, Heinz T, Millington S, Vecsei V (2006) Treatment results of pathological fractures of the long bones: a retrospective analysis of 88 patients. Int Orthop 30(6):519–524CrossRefPubMed Sarahrudi K, Hora K, Heinz T, Millington S, Vecsei V (2006) Treatment results of pathological fractures of the long bones: a retrospective analysis of 88 patients. Int Orthop 30(6):519–524CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference The Breast Speciality Group of the British Association of Surgical Oncology (1999) British Association of Surgical Oncology Guidelines: the management of metastatic bone disease in the United Kingdom. Eur J Surg Oncol 25(1):3–23CrossRef The Breast Speciality Group of the British Association of Surgical Oncology (1999) British Association of Surgical Oncology Guidelines: the management of metastatic bone disease in the United Kingdom. Eur J Surg Oncol 25(1):3–23CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Proximal femoral replacements for metastatic bone disease: financial implications for sarcoma units
Authors
Robert U. Ashford
Sammy A. Hanna
Derek H. Park
Rob C. Pollock
John A. Skinner
Timothy W. R. Briggs
Stephen R. Cannon
Publication date
01-06-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 5/2010
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0838-6

Other articles of this Issue 5/2010

International Orthopaedics 5/2010 Go to the issue