Outcomes of Abductor Repair Using Mesh Augmentation in Oncologic Proximal Femur Replacement
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Technique
2.2. Primary and Secondary Outcomes
3. Results
3.1. Ambulatory Status
3.2. Clinical Outcomes
3.3. Complications
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Henderson, E.R.; Keeney, B.J.; Pala, E.; Funovics, P.T.; Eward, W.C.; Groundland, J.S.; Ehrlichman, L.K.; Puchner, S.S.; Brigman, B.E.; Ready, J.E.; et al. The stability of the hip after the use of a proximal femoral endoprosthesis for oncological indications: Analysis of variables relating to the patient and the surgical technique. Bone Joint J. 2017, 99-B, 531–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ribera, J.; Payo-Ollero, J.; Serrano-Toledano, D.; Del Rio-Arteaga, M.; Montilla, F.J.; Muela, R. Megaprosthesis use in Paprosky III/IV femoral defects in non-oncological patients: Analysis of survival, clinical, and functional outcomes after an average follow-up of five years. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2024, 34, 1183–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jones, K.B.; Griffin, A.M.; Chandrasekar, C.R.; Biau, D.; Babinet, A.; Deheshi, B.; Bell, R.S.; Grimer, R.J.; Wunder, J.S.; Ferguson, P.C. Patient-oriented functional results of total femoral endoprosthetic reconstruction following oncologic resection. J. Surg. Oncol. 2011, 104, 561–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bickels, J.; Meller, I.; Henshaw, R.; Malawer, M. Reconstruction of hip stability after proximal and total femur resections. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2000, 375, 218–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogilvie, C.M.; Wunder, J.S.; Ferguson, P.C.; Griffin, A.M.; Bell, R.S. Functional outcome of endoprosthetic proximal femoral replacement. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2004, 426, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizkallah, M.; Araneta, K.T.; Aoude, A.; Turcotte, R. Outcomes After Abductor Reattachment to Proximal Femur Endoprosthesis After Tumor Resection. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2023, 31, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ropars, M.; Lambotte, J.C.; Maximen, J.; Crenn, V.; Tronchot, A.; Huten, D. Techniques and outcomes of hip abductor reconstruction following tumor resection in adults. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2021, 107, 102765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, E.R.; Jennings, J.M.; Marulanda, G.A.; Groundland, J.S.; Cheong, D.; Letson, G.D. Enhancing soft tissue ingrowth in proximal femoral arthroplasty with aortograft sleeve: A novel technique and early results. J. Arthroplast. 2011, 26, 161–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gosheger, G.; Hillmann, A.; Lindner, N.; Rödl, R.; Hoffmann, C.; Bürger, H.; Winkelmann, W. Soft tissue reconstruction of megaprostheses using a trevira tube. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2001, 393, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez, M.; Gomez-Gil, V.; Perez-Kohler, B.; Pascual, G.; Bellon, J.M. Polymer Hernia Repair Materials: Adapting to Patient Needs and Surgical Techniques. Materials 2021, 14, 2790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wolstenholme, J. Use of commercial dacron fabric in the repair of inguinal hernias and abdominal wall defects. AMA Arch. Surg. 1956, 73, 1004–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elliott, M.; Juler, G. Comparison of Marlex mesh and microporous teflon sheets when used for hernia repair in the experimental animal. Am. J. Surg. 1979, 137, 342–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Enneking, W.F.; Dunham, W.; Gebhardt, M.C.; Malawar, M.; Pritchard, D.J. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1993, 286, 241–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, W.H. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: Treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 1969, 51, 737–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kawai, A.; Backus, S.I.; Otis, J.C.; Inoue, H.; Healey, J.H. Gait characteristics of patients after proximal femoral replacement for malignant bone tumour. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2000, 82, 666–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groundland, J.; Brown, J.; Jones, K.; Randall, R.L. Is osseous reattachment of the greater trochanter necessary compared to soft-tissue-only abductor repair in proximal femoral megaprosthesis reconstruction? J. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 124, 115–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elbuluk, A.M.; Coxe, F.R.; Schimizzi, G.V.; Ranawat, A.S.; Bostrom, M.P.; Sierra, R.J.; Sculco, P.K. Abductor Deficiency-Induced Recurrent Instability After Total Hip Arthroplasty. JBJS Rev. 2020, 8, e0164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puchner, S.E.; Funovics, P.T.; Hipfl, C.; Dominkus, M.; Windhager, R.; Hofstaetter, J.G. Incidence and management of hip dislocation in tumour patients with a modular prosthesis of the proximal femur. Int. Orthop. 2014, 38, 1677–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masterson, E.; Ferracini, R.; Griffin, A.; Wunder, J.; Bell, R. Capsular replacement with synthetic mesh: Effectiveness in preventing postoperative dislocation after wide resection of proximal femoral tumors and prosthetic reconstruction. J. Arthroplast. 1998, 13, 860–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R.H.; Subramanian, A.; Hwang, C.S.; Chang, S.; Awad, S.S. Comparison of infectious complications with synthetic mesh in ventral hernia repair. Am. J. Surg. 2013, 205, 182–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guillaume, O.; Perez-Tanoira, R.; Fortelny, R.; Redl, H.; Moriarty, T.F.; Richards, R.G.; Eglin, D.; Petter Puchner, A. Infections associated with mesh repairs of abdominal wall hernias: Are antimicrobial biomaterials the longed-for solution? Biomaterials 2018, 167, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Patient | Age | Sex | Primary Diagnosis | Pathologic Fracture | Post-Operative MSTS | Post-Operative Gait Aid | Alive/Dead | Duration Follow-Up (Months) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 63 | Male | Renal Carcinoma | Yes | 90 | Cane | Dead | 6 |
2 | 59 | Male | Renal Carcinoma | No | 67 | Cane | Dead | 10 |
3 | 39 | Male | Renal Carcinoma | No | 93 | None | Alive | 12 |
4 | 62 | Female | UPS | Yes | 57 | Cane | Alive | 13 |
5 | 72 | Male | Renal Carcinoma | No | 93 | None | Alive | 19 |
6 | 77 | Female | Renal Carcinoma | No | 63 | Cane Walker for Distances | Alive | 20 |
7 | 37 | Female | Osteosarcoma | No | 60 | Cane | Dead | 22 |
8 | 58 | Female | Renal Carcinoma | No | 77 | Single Crutch | Alive | 22 |
9 | 66 | Male | Renal Carcinoma | No | 93 | None | Dead | 23 |
10 | 68 | Male | Prostate Carcinoma | Yes | 100 | None | Alive | 24 |
11 | 70 | Male | Radiation Associated Fracture | No | 87 | None | Alive | 24 |
12 | 60 | Male | Mast Cell Sarcoma | Yes | 93 | None | Alive | 28 |
13 | 66 | Male | Renal Carcinoma | No | 100 | None | Alive | 30 |
14 | 46 | Female | Chondrosarcoma | No | 43 | Single Crutch | Alive 1 | 33 |
15 | 70 | Female | Breast Carcinoma | Yes | 67 | Cane | Alive | 34 |
16 | 78 | Female | Renal Carcinoma | Yes | 57 | Cane | Alive | 39 |
17 | 62 | Female | Lung Adenocarcinoma | Yes | 80 | None | Alive | 43 |
18 | 75 | Female | Renal Carcinoma | Yes | 63 | Cane | Alive | 44 |
Study | Abductor Repair Method | Group Size | Ambulatory | Ambulatory without Gait Aid | Non-Trendelenburg Gait | Infection | Dislocation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Groundland et al. [16] | Trochanter preservation | n = 29 | 90% | 17% | 10% | 17% | 0% |
Soft tissue repair to prosthesis | n = 24 | 100% | 33% | 38% | 4% | 4% | |
Rizkallah et al. [6] | Trochanter preservation | n = 22 | NR | 32% | 23% | 9% | 0% |
Soft tissue repair to prosthesis | n = 31 | NR | 19% | 26% | 10% | 19% | |
Broida et al. (Present) | Mesh-augmented soft tissue repair | n = 18 | 100% | 56% | 33% | 0% | 0% |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Broida, S.E.; Salmons, H.I.; Owen, A.R.; Houdek, M.T. Outcomes of Abductor Repair Using Mesh Augmentation in Oncologic Proximal Femur Replacement. Curr. Oncol. 2024, 31, 5730-5736. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100425
Broida SE, Salmons HI, Owen AR, Houdek MT. Outcomes of Abductor Repair Using Mesh Augmentation in Oncologic Proximal Femur Replacement. Current Oncology. 2024; 31(10):5730-5736. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100425
Chicago/Turabian StyleBroida, Samuel E., Harold I. Salmons, Aaron R. Owen, and Matthew T. Houdek. 2024. "Outcomes of Abductor Repair Using Mesh Augmentation in Oncologic Proximal Femur Replacement" Current Oncology 31, no. 10: 5730-5736. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100425