Jeys L M, Kulkarni A, Grimer R J, Carter S R, Tillman R M, Abudu A
Royal Orthopaedic Hospital Oncology Service, Bristol Road South, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2AP, United Kingdom.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jun;90(6):1265-71. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01324.
Excision of a bone tumor requires reconstruction if limb salvage is a priority. Reconstruction with an endoprosthetic implant is preferred in our unit, as the patient typically can return rapidly to full weight-bearing and functional activities. Long-term complications, such as deep infection, aseptic loosening, and mechanical failure of the implants, have led to concerns about the efficacy of reconstruction and the ability to revise failed implants while maintaining limb salvage in the longer term. The purpose of this study was to investigate the survival of endoprosthetic reconstructions in the medium to long term in order to determine the factors associated with their failure.
A consecutive series of 776 patients underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction following resection of a bone tumor at a minimum of ten years prior to this investigation. One hundred and nine children with a so-called growing endoprosthesis were excluded as they often require revision to an adult prosthesis near skeletal maturity. Six patients were excluded because of a lack of adequate follow-up data, leaving 661 patients for analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the implant was performed, with implant revision for any cause (infection, local recurrence, and mechanical failure), mechanical failure alone, and amputation used as the end points.
The mean duration of follow-up was fifteen years for patients who survived the original disease. Two hundred and twenty-seven patients (34%) had revision surgery because of mechanical failure (116 patients), infection (seventy-five patients), and locally recurrent disease (thirty-six patients). Implant survival at ten years was 75% with mechanical failure as the end point and 58% with failure from any cause as the end point. The limb salvage rate was 84% at twenty years.
We believe these medium to long-term results with first-generation endoprostheses are encouraging and justify the continued use of endoprostheses for reconstruction following the excision of a bone tumor.
如果保肢是首要考虑因素,骨肿瘤切除后需要进行重建。在我们科室,采用内置假体植入进行重建是首选方法,因为患者通常能够迅速恢复到完全负重及功能活动状态。长期并发症,如深部感染、无菌性松动以及植入物的机械故障,引发了对重建效果以及在长期维持保肢的同时翻修失败植入物能力的担忧。本研究的目的是调查内置假体重建的中长期生存率,以确定与其失败相关的因素。
在本次调查前至少十年,一系列连续的776例患者在骨肿瘤切除后接受了内置假体重建。109例使用所谓生长型内置假体的儿童被排除,因为他们在骨骼成熟时通常需要翻修为成人假体。6例患者因缺乏足够的随访数据被排除,剩余661例患者进行分析。对植入物进行Kaplan-Meier生存分析,将因任何原因(感染、局部复发和机械故障)进行的植入物翻修、单独的机械故障以及截肢作为终点。
存活过原发疾病的患者平均随访时间为15年。227例患者(34%)因机械故障(116例患者)、感染(75例患者)和局部复发疾病(36例患者)接受了翻修手术。以机械故障为终点时,植入物10年生存率为75%;以任何原因导致的失败为终点时,生存率为58%。20年时保肢率为84%。
我们认为这些第一代内置假体的中长期结果令人鼓舞,证明在骨肿瘤切除后继续使用内置假体进行重建是合理的。