Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (3)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = tumour endoprosthesis

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
10 pages, 1072 KB  
Communication
Long-Term Clinical and Radiographic Osseointegration Outcomes of a Highly Porous 3D-Printed Titanium Collar Compared with a Hydroxyapatite-Coated Collar in Megaprostheses
by Hariharan Triplicane Dwarakanathan, Natalie Green, Thomas Haider, Iosif Pagkalos, Guy Morris, Rajesh Botchu and Lee M. Jeys
J. Funct. Biomater. 2026, 17(6), 291; https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb17060291 - 9 Jun 2026
Viewed by 494
Abstract
This is a retrospective, single-center cohort study comparing the long-term radiographic osseointegration and aseptic loosening between a 3D-printed EPORE® collar and a prior generation HA-coated collar in endoprosthetic reconstructions. Achieving stable bone integration in endoprosthetic reconstructions remains challenging, with hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated collars [...] Read more.
This is a retrospective, single-center cohort study comparing the long-term radiographic osseointegration and aseptic loosening between a 3D-printed EPORE® collar and a prior generation HA-coated collar in endoprosthetic reconstructions. Achieving stable bone integration in endoprosthetic reconstructions remains challenging, with hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated collars being the only option available in the past. Earlier studies from our center have shown reliable and accelerated osseointegration at the bone–collar interface using a novel highly porous 3D-printed EPORE® collar system compared to a previously used HA-coated collar. Methods: Twenty-eight patients who underwent an implantation of endoprostheses utilizing the novel 3D-printed EPORE® collar system were case-matched to 24 patients who had previously undergone surgeries using a HA-coated collar. The mean age at surgery was 65.2 years (range: 17–95 years). Patients in the HA-coated collar group had a mean age of 63.8 years (range: 17–86 years), while those in the 3D-printed collar group had a mean age of 66.7 years (range: 32–95 years), with no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.876). A minimum radiological and clinical follow-up of 2 years was available in all included cases. Osseointegration was evaluated using postoperative plain radiographs in two planes based on a previously validated semi-quantitative score. Results: When aseptic loosening was used as the primary endpoint, no failures occurred in the 3D-printed EPORE® group during the study period. The overall rate of stem loosening (including both aseptic and septic causes) was 7% (2/28) in the 3D-printed group and 16% (4/24) in the HA-coated group. All cases of loosening in the 3D-printed cohort were related to septic failure. This translates into a 2-year aseptic-loosening-free survival of 100% in the 3D-printed group. When the radiographic osseointegration was analyzed as the endpoint, the rate of successful osseointegration was significantly higher in the 3D-printed group (92.9%, 26/28; 95% CI 76.5–99.1%) compared with the HA-coated group (70.8%, 17/24; 95% CI 48.9–87.4%; p = 0.04). The distribution of ongrowth scores also differed significantly between groups. The highest ongrowth score (grade 4) was achieved in 82.14% of 3D-printed implants (23/28; 95% CI 63.1–93.9%), compared with 37.5% of HA-coated implants (9/24; p = 0.0002). The time to achieve grade 4 ongrowth was significantly shorter in the 3D-printed cohort, with a median of 470 days (IQR 360–610), compared with 1482 days (IQR 1020–1860) in the HA-coated group (p < 0.0001). In addition, patients in the 3D-printed implant group had a significantly higher mean body mass index compared with the HA-coated group (32.51 vs. 28.36, p = 0.01). Conclusions: These results show that the novel highly porous 3D-printed EPORE® collars reduce aseptic loosening and accelerate extracortical bridging in endoprosthetic replacements. This benefit persisted even in higher BMI or revision contexts when compared to the previously used HA-coated collars. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Bone Biomaterials)
Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 9174 KB  
Article
Hemipelvectomy and 3D Custom-Made Prosthesis Implantation: Early Surgical, Radiographic, and Functional Results—A Multicentre Study
by Grzegorz Guzik, Daniel Pyrka, Paweł Łęgosz, Piotr Szremski and Piotr Biega
Medicina 2026, 62(5), 951; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina62050951 - 13 May 2026
Viewed by 293
Abstract
Background: There are still insufficient studies based on large patient cohorts that evaluate both functional and surgical outcomes after internal hemipelvectomy and 3D-printed endoprosthesis implantation. This study aimed to determine how the method of pelvic bone defect reconstruction determines early functional, surgical, [...] Read more.
Background: There are still insufficient studies based on large patient cohorts that evaluate both functional and surgical outcomes after internal hemipelvectomy and 3D-printed endoprosthesis implantation. This study aimed to determine how the method of pelvic bone defect reconstruction determines early functional, surgical, and radiographic outcomes. Methods: The aims of the study were achieved based on retrospective observations of 49 patients who underwent surgical treatment at several centres in Poland. All patients underwent internal hemipelvectomy and implantation of 3D-printed prostheses. Surgical parameters were assessed, including operative time, blood loss, and surgical complications (infections, implant loosening, dislocations), as well as bone osseointegration. Functional outcomes were assessed using the HHS and MSTS-93 scales, and pain intensity was measured using the VAS. Outcomes were stratified according to implant design and fixation method based on the West China Classification. Results: The most commonly performed procedures were internal hemipelvectomies of Enneking Type I + II and II + III, with reconstructions most frequently classified as WChC-Aa (15%) and WChC-Bb (44%). Functional assessments revealed significant improvement across all patients. Both the HHS and MSTS-93 values demonstrated marked progress from preoperative averages of 44 (HHS) and 12 (MSTS-93) to 64, 70.2, and 76 (HHS) and 19, 20, and 20.2 (MSTS-93) after 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively. Correspondingly, pain intensity decreased from a mean preoperative VAS score of 8.5 to 4.4, 3.4, and 3.2 after surgery. Osseointegration occurred in 53%, 75%, and 83% of patients after 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively. Wound-healing complications were observed in 6 patients, while deep infection developed in 4 cases. In 3 patients, the implant was removed. Implant loosening was noted in imaging studies in 7 patients (14%) and 8 patients (16%) at 3 and 6 months postoperatively, respectively. Local tumour recurrence was observed in 6 cases. Conclusions: The extent of pelvic tumour resection and the reconstruction method appear to influence surgical parameters, the risk of complications, and operative time. Functional outcomes measured using VAS, HHS, and MSTS-93 scales showed improvement following surgical treatment and tended to improve over time; however, these findings should be interpreted with caution given the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of assessment of minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The use of 3D-printed implants may facilitate precise pelvic reconstruction and enable early mobilization and rehabilitation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Orthopedics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 347 KB  
Review
Implant Survival, Clinical Outcome and Complications of Megaprosthetic Reconstructions Following Sarcoma Resection
by Christoph Theil, Jan Schwarze, Georg Gosheger, Burkhard Moellenbeck, Kristian Nikolaus Schneider, Niklas Deventer, Sebastian Klingebiel, George Grammatopoulos, Friedrich Boettner and Tom Schmidt-Braekling
Cancers 2022, 14(2), 351; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14020351 - 11 Jan 2022
Cited by 38 | Viewed by 4510
Abstract
Megaprosthetic reconstruction of segmental bone defects following sarcoma resection is a frequently chosen surgical approach in orthopedic oncology. While the use of megaprostheses has gained popularity over the last decades and such implants are increasingly used for metastatic reconstructions and in non-tumor cases, [...] Read more.
Megaprosthetic reconstruction of segmental bone defects following sarcoma resection is a frequently chosen surgical approach in orthopedic oncology. While the use of megaprostheses has gained popularity over the last decades and such implants are increasingly used for metastatic reconstructions and in non-tumor cases, there still is a high risk of long-term complications leading to revision surgery. This article investigates current implant survivorship, frequency and types of complications as well as functional outcomes of upper and lower limb megaprosthetic reconstructions. Full article
Back to TopTop