Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Orthopaedics 9/2015

01-09-2015 | Original Paper

Peri-prosthetic fractures around tumor endoprostheses: a retrospective analysis of eighteen cases

Authors: Nicolas Barut, Philippe Anract, Antoine Babinet, David Biau

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 9/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Tumour hip and knee endoprostheses have become the mainstay for reconstruction of patients with bone tumours. Fixation into host bone has improved over time. However, some patients present with a peri-prosthetic fracture over follow-up. The objective of this study was to analyse the mode of presentation and survival of implant after a peri-prosthetic fracture around a tumour endoprosthesis.

Methods

Eighteen peri-prosthetic fractures (17 patients) were included. All patients were treated at a tertiary care center. There were 11 (65 %) women; the median age at the time of fracture was 38 years old. All implants were cemented and all knee endoprostheses were fixed-hinge. Twelve (67 %) fractures occurred after femoral resection and six (33 %) fractures after proximal tibial resection.

Results

There were three femoral neck fractures (UCS C), three femoral shaft type C fractures, two femoral shaft type B1, one tibial shaft type B2, three tibial shaft type C, three ankle fractures (UCS C) and three patella fractures (UCS F). Two fractures were treated conservatively and 16 were operated on. Only one patient had the implant revised. There were eight (44 %) failures over follow-up; none of the conservative treatment failed. The cumulative probability of failure for any reason was 27 % (8–52) and 55 % (22–79) at five and ten years, respectively.

Conclusions

Peri-prosthetic fractures around massive endoprostheses are different from that of standard implants. There are more type C fractures; internal fixation is an attractive option at the time of presentation but the risk of revision over follow-up is high and patients should be informed accordingly.
Literature
1.
go back to reference ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group (2014) Bone sarcomas: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 25:113–123CrossRef ESMO/European Sarcoma Network Working Group (2014) Bone sarcomas: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 25:113–123CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Hattori H, Mibe J, Yamamoto K (2011) Modular megaprosthesis in metastatic bone disease of the femur. Orthopedics 34:871–876CrossRef Hattori H, Mibe J, Yamamoto K (2011) Modular megaprosthesis in metastatic bone disease of the femur. Orthopedics 34:871–876CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Kinkel S, Lehner B, Kleinhans JA, Jakubowitz E, Ewerbeck V, Heisel C (2010) Medium to long-term results after reconstruction of bone defects at the knee with tumor endoprostheses. J Surg Oncol 101:166–169PubMed Kinkel S, Lehner B, Kleinhans JA, Jakubowitz E, Ewerbeck V, Heisel C (2010) Medium to long-term results after reconstruction of bone defects at the knee with tumor endoprostheses. J Surg Oncol 101:166–169PubMed
4.
go back to reference Vaishya R, Singh AP, Hasija R, Singh AP (2011) Treatment of resistant nonunion of supracondylar fractures femur by megaprosthesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1137–1140CrossRefPubMed Vaishya R, Singh AP, Hasija R, Singh AP (2011) Treatment of resistant nonunion of supracondylar fractures femur by megaprosthesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1137–1140CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Calori GM, Colombo M, Malagoli E, Mazzola S, Bucci M, Mazza E (2014) Megaprosthesis in post-traumatic and periprosthetic large bone defects: issues to consider. Injury 45:105–110CrossRef Calori GM, Colombo M, Malagoli E, Mazzola S, Bucci M, Mazza E (2014) Megaprosthesis in post-traumatic and periprosthetic large bone defects: issues to consider. Injury 45:105–110CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR, Kermani C, Gotha H (2006) Survivorship and clinical outcome of modular endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplastic disease of the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 88:790–795CrossRef Ahlmann ER, Menendez LR, Kermani C, Gotha H (2006) Survivorship and clinical outcome of modular endoprosthetic reconstruction for neoplastic disease of the lower limb. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 88:790–795CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Malawer MM, Chou LB (1995) Prosthetic survival and clinical results with use of large-segment replacements in the treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas. J Bone J Surg Am 77:1154–1165 Malawer MM, Chou LB (1995) Prosthetic survival and clinical results with use of large-segment replacements in the treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas. J Bone J Surg Am 77:1154–1165
8.
go back to reference Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Pala E, Dennis JA, Wooten R et al (2011) Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:418–429CrossRefPubMed Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Pala E, Dennis JA, Wooten R et al (2011) Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:418–429CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Biau D, Faure F, Katsahian S, Jeanrot C, Tomeno B, Anract P (2006) Survival of total knee replacement with a megaprosthesis after bone tumor resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1285–1293CrossRefPubMed Biau D, Faure F, Katsahian S, Jeanrot C, Tomeno B, Anract P (2006) Survival of total knee replacement with a megaprosthesis after bone tumor resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1285–1293CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Gebhart M, Shumelinsky F (2012) Management of periprosthetic fractures in patients treated with a megaprosthesis for malignant bone tumours around the knee. Acta Orthop Belg 78:558–563PubMed Gebhart M, Shumelinsky F (2012) Management of periprosthetic fractures in patients treated with a megaprosthesis for malignant bone tumours around the knee. Acta Orthop Belg 78:558–563PubMed
12.
go back to reference Natarajan MV, Sivaseelam A, Ayyappan S, Bose JC, Sampath Kumar M (2005) Distal femoral tumors treated by resection and custom mega-prosthetic replacement. Int Orthop 29:309–313PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Natarajan MV, Sivaseelam A, Ayyappan S, Bose JC, Sampath Kumar M (2005) Distal femoral tumors treated by resection and custom mega-prosthetic replacement. Int Orthop 29:309–313PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
13.
15.
go back to reference Pala E, Henderson ER, Calabrò T, Angelini A, Abati CN, Trovarelli G, Ruggieri P (2013) Survival of current production tumor endoprostheses: complications, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis. J Surg Oncol 108:403–408CrossRefPubMed Pala E, Henderson ER, Calabrò T, Angelini A, Abati CN, Trovarelli G, Ruggieri P (2013) Survival of current production tumor endoprostheses: complications, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis. J Surg Oncol 108:403–408CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Duncan CP, Haddad FS (2014) The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J 96:713–716CrossRefPubMed Duncan CP, Haddad FS (2014) The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J 96:713–716CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Prentice RL, Kalbfleisch JD, Peterson AV Jr, Flournoy N, Farewell VT, Breslow NE (1978) The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks. Biometrics 34:541–554CrossRefPubMed Prentice RL, Kalbfleisch JD, Peterson AV Jr, Flournoy N, Farewell VT, Breslow NE (1978) The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks. Biometrics 34:541–554CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Biau DJ, Latouche A, Porcher R (2007) Competing events influence estimated survival probability; when is Kaplan-Meier analysis appropriate? Clin Orthop Relat Res 462:229–233CrossRefPubMed Biau DJ, Latouche A, Porcher R (2007) Competing events influence estimated survival probability; when is Kaplan-Meier analysis appropriate? Clin Orthop Relat Res 462:229–233CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Meek RM, Norwood T, Smith R, Brenkel IJ, Howie CR (2011) The risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after primary and revision total hip and knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 93:96–101CrossRef Meek RM, Norwood T, Smith R, Brenkel IJ, Howie CR (2011) The risk of peri-prosthetic fracture after primary and revision total hip and knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 93:96–101CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Lunebourg A, Mouhsine E, Cherix S, Ollivier M, Chevalley F, Wettstein M (2015) Treatment of type B periprosthetic femur fractures with curved non-locking plate with eccentric holes: retrospective study of 43 patients with minimum 1-year follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101:277–282CrossRefPubMed Lunebourg A, Mouhsine E, Cherix S, Ollivier M, Chevalley F, Wettstein M (2015) Treatment of type B periprosthetic femur fractures with curved non-locking plate with eccentric holes: retrospective study of 43 patients with minimum 1-year follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101:277–282CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Apivatthakakul T, Phornphutkul C, Bunmaprasert T, Sananpanich K, Fernandez Dell’Oca A (2012) Percutaneous cerclage wiring and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO): a percutaneous reduction technique in the treatment of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:813–822CrossRefPubMed Apivatthakakul T, Phornphutkul C, Bunmaprasert T, Sananpanich K, Fernandez Dell’Oca A (2012) Percutaneous cerclage wiring and minimally invasive plate osteosynthesis (MIPO): a percutaneous reduction technique in the treatment of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:813–822CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Cooper HJ, Rodriguez JA (2010) Early post-operative periprosthetic femur fracture in the presence of a non-cemented tapered wedge femoral stem. HSS J 6:150–154PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed Cooper HJ, Rodriguez JA (2010) Early post-operative periprosthetic femur fracture in the presence of a non-cemented tapered wedge femoral stem. HSS J 6:150–154PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Spina M, Rocca G, Canella A, Scalvi A (2014) Causes of failure in periprosthetic fractures of the hip at 1- to 14-year follow-up. Injury 45:85–92CrossRef Spina M, Rocca G, Canella A, Scalvi A (2014) Causes of failure in periprosthetic fractures of the hip at 1- to 14-year follow-up. Injury 45:85–92CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Macdonald SJ, Paprosky WG, Jablonsky WS, Magnus RG (2001) Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a long-stem cementless component. J Arthroplasty 16:379–383CrossRefPubMed Macdonald SJ, Paprosky WG, Jablonsky WS, Magnus RG (2001) Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated with a long-stem cementless component. J Arthroplasty 16:379–383CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Van der Merwe JM, Haddad FS, Duncan CP (2014) Field testing the unified classification system for periprosthetic fractures of the femur, tibia and patella in association with knee replacement: an international collaboration. Bone Joint J 96:1669–1673CrossRefPubMed Van der Merwe JM, Haddad FS, Duncan CP (2014) Field testing the unified classification system for periprosthetic fractures of the femur, tibia and patella in association with knee replacement: an international collaboration. Bone Joint J 96:1669–1673CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Peri-prosthetic fractures around tumor endoprostheses: a retrospective analysis of eighteen cases
Authors
Nicolas Barut
Philippe Anract
Antoine Babinet
David Biau
Publication date
01-09-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2915-3

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

International Orthopaedics 9/2015 Go to the issue