Endoprosthetic reconstructions: Results of long-term followup of 139 patients

Jesse T. Torbert, Edward Fox, Harish S. Hosalkar, Christian M. Ogilvie, Richard D. Lackman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

89 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Our primary goal in doing this study was to determine the effect of prosthesis location, patient age, periprosthetic infection, and primary versus revision placement on endoprosthetic survival. We also examined our endoprosthetic survival rates and reasons for failure. We retrospectively studied 139 endoprosthetic reconstructions performed between 1984 and 2002, including 57 distal femur, 27 proximal femur, 26 proximal tibia, 17 proximal humerus, 4 distal humerus, 3 total scapula, 3 total femur, and 2 total humerus reconstructions. Location of reconstruction and presence of periprosthetic infection significantly affected endoprosthetic survival. Survival was not affected by patient age or primary versus revision placement. Overall, Kaplan-Meier event-free endoprosthetic survival was 86%, 80%, and 69% at 3, 5, and 10-year followup. The trend for endoprosthetic survival from best to worst was proximal femur, proximal humerus, distal femur, proximal tibia, and distal humerus. Reasons for failure included mechanical failure (eight patients), tumor recurrence (eight patients), aseptic loosening (six patients), dislocation (two patients), periprosthetic infection (two patients), and endoprosthetic malalignment (one patient). Our periprosthetic infection rate was 2.2%. The local recurrence rate in patients treated for primary malignant tumors was 6.8%, similar to previous limb-salvage and amputation studies. Overall, we have found that endoprosthetic reconstruction is a reliable limb-salvage technique. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level IV-2 (case series).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)51-59
Number of pages9
JournalClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
Issue number438
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2005

Fingerprint

Humerus
Femur
Limb Salvage
Survival
Infection
Tibia
Recurrence
Scapula
Amputation
Disease-Free Survival
Prostheses and Implants
Neoplasms
Survival Rate

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Torbert, Jesse T. ; Fox, Edward ; Hosalkar, Harish S. ; Ogilvie, Christian M. ; Lackman, Richard D. / Endoprosthetic reconstructions : Results of long-term followup of 139 patients. In: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2005 ; No. 438. pp. 51-59.
@article{c61b47fde204484dac567e9739ff8ff2,
title = "Endoprosthetic reconstructions: Results of long-term followup of 139 patients",
abstract = "Our primary goal in doing this study was to determine the effect of prosthesis location, patient age, periprosthetic infection, and primary versus revision placement on endoprosthetic survival. We also examined our endoprosthetic survival rates and reasons for failure. We retrospectively studied 139 endoprosthetic reconstructions performed between 1984 and 2002, including 57 distal femur, 27 proximal femur, 26 proximal tibia, 17 proximal humerus, 4 distal humerus, 3 total scapula, 3 total femur, and 2 total humerus reconstructions. Location of reconstruction and presence of periprosthetic infection significantly affected endoprosthetic survival. Survival was not affected by patient age or primary versus revision placement. Overall, Kaplan-Meier event-free endoprosthetic survival was 86{\%}, 80{\%}, and 69{\%} at 3, 5, and 10-year followup. The trend for endoprosthetic survival from best to worst was proximal femur, proximal humerus, distal femur, proximal tibia, and distal humerus. Reasons for failure included mechanical failure (eight patients), tumor recurrence (eight patients), aseptic loosening (six patients), dislocation (two patients), periprosthetic infection (two patients), and endoprosthetic malalignment (one patient). Our periprosthetic infection rate was 2.2{\%}. The local recurrence rate in patients treated for primary malignant tumors was 6.8{\%}, similar to previous limb-salvage and amputation studies. Overall, we have found that endoprosthetic reconstruction is a reliable limb-salvage technique. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level IV-2 (case series).",
author = "Torbert, {Jesse T.} and Edward Fox and Hosalkar, {Harish S.} and Ogilvie, {Christian M.} and Lackman, {Richard D.}",
year = "2005",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01.blo.0000179735.37089.c2",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "51--59",
journal = "Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research",
issn = "0009-921X",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "438",

}

Endoprosthetic reconstructions : Results of long-term followup of 139 patients. / Torbert, Jesse T.; Fox, Edward; Hosalkar, Harish S.; Ogilvie, Christian M.; Lackman, Richard D.

In: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, No. 438, 01.01.2005, p. 51-59.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Endoprosthetic reconstructions

T2 - Results of long-term followup of 139 patients

AU - Torbert, Jesse T.

AU - Fox, Edward

AU - Hosalkar, Harish S.

AU - Ogilvie, Christian M.

AU - Lackman, Richard D.

PY - 2005/1/1

Y1 - 2005/1/1

N2 - Our primary goal in doing this study was to determine the effect of prosthesis location, patient age, periprosthetic infection, and primary versus revision placement on endoprosthetic survival. We also examined our endoprosthetic survival rates and reasons for failure. We retrospectively studied 139 endoprosthetic reconstructions performed between 1984 and 2002, including 57 distal femur, 27 proximal femur, 26 proximal tibia, 17 proximal humerus, 4 distal humerus, 3 total scapula, 3 total femur, and 2 total humerus reconstructions. Location of reconstruction and presence of periprosthetic infection significantly affected endoprosthetic survival. Survival was not affected by patient age or primary versus revision placement. Overall, Kaplan-Meier event-free endoprosthetic survival was 86%, 80%, and 69% at 3, 5, and 10-year followup. The trend for endoprosthetic survival from best to worst was proximal femur, proximal humerus, distal femur, proximal tibia, and distal humerus. Reasons for failure included mechanical failure (eight patients), tumor recurrence (eight patients), aseptic loosening (six patients), dislocation (two patients), periprosthetic infection (two patients), and endoprosthetic malalignment (one patient). Our periprosthetic infection rate was 2.2%. The local recurrence rate in patients treated for primary malignant tumors was 6.8%, similar to previous limb-salvage and amputation studies. Overall, we have found that endoprosthetic reconstruction is a reliable limb-salvage technique. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level IV-2 (case series).

AB - Our primary goal in doing this study was to determine the effect of prosthesis location, patient age, periprosthetic infection, and primary versus revision placement on endoprosthetic survival. We also examined our endoprosthetic survival rates and reasons for failure. We retrospectively studied 139 endoprosthetic reconstructions performed between 1984 and 2002, including 57 distal femur, 27 proximal femur, 26 proximal tibia, 17 proximal humerus, 4 distal humerus, 3 total scapula, 3 total femur, and 2 total humerus reconstructions. Location of reconstruction and presence of periprosthetic infection significantly affected endoprosthetic survival. Survival was not affected by patient age or primary versus revision placement. Overall, Kaplan-Meier event-free endoprosthetic survival was 86%, 80%, and 69% at 3, 5, and 10-year followup. The trend for endoprosthetic survival from best to worst was proximal femur, proximal humerus, distal femur, proximal tibia, and distal humerus. Reasons for failure included mechanical failure (eight patients), tumor recurrence (eight patients), aseptic loosening (six patients), dislocation (two patients), periprosthetic infection (two patients), and endoprosthetic malalignment (one patient). Our periprosthetic infection rate was 2.2%. The local recurrence rate in patients treated for primary malignant tumors was 6.8%, similar to previous limb-salvage and amputation studies. Overall, we have found that endoprosthetic reconstruction is a reliable limb-salvage technique. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level IV-2 (case series).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24344474310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24344474310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.blo.0000179735.37089.c2

DO - 10.1097/01.blo.0000179735.37089.c2

M3 - Article

C2 - 16131869

AN - SCOPUS:24344474310

SP - 51

EP - 59

JO - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

JF - Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

SN - 0009-921X

IS - 438

ER -