Mendez-Guerra Carolina, Gonzalez Marcos R, Pretell-Mazzini Juan
Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima, Peru.
Division of Orthopaedic Oncology, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
J Arthroplasty. 2025 Mar;40(3):802-808.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.09.019. Epub 2024 Sep 16.
There is conflicting data regarding the optimal abductor mechanism (AM) repair technique after resection of proximal femur tumors. We sought to compare functional outcomes following tumor resection and reconstruction with proximal femoral replacement based on the AM repair technique utilized.
We conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We established two study groups based on AM repair technique as follows: soft-tissue reattachment (STr) and greater trochanter preservation (GTp). In the STr group, the gluteus medius and minimus muscles were reattached to the endoprosthesis, whereas in the GTp group, the greater trochanter and gluteal tendons were preserved. The STr group was further subdivided into direct and indirect reattachments. Weighted means adjusting for sample size were calculated.
A total of 658 patients from 12 articles were included. Patients who had STr displayed higher Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores (75 versus 67.3%, P < 0.001), lower rates of Trendelenburg gait (33.9 versus 52.4%, P < 0.01), and ambulation with assistive devices (30.4 versus 54.9%, P < 0.001) compared to the GTp group. Within the STr group, indirect reattachment was associated with higher Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores (87.2 versus 70.1%, P < 0.001) and lower rates of Trendelenburg gait (3.8 versus 36.3%, P < 0.001) and ambulation with assistive devices (0 versus 42.4%, P < 0.001) compared to direct reattachment. The reattachment hardware failure rate in GTp was 15%.
A STr provided superior functional outcomes compared to GTp in tumor-related proximal femoral replacement. From a functional outcome perspective, the use of indirect STr was better compared to direct STr.
III.
关于股骨近端肿瘤切除术后最佳外展肌机制(AM)修复技术的数据存在冲突。我们试图根据所采用的AM修复技术,比较肿瘤切除及股骨近端置换重建后的功能结果。
我们按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目指南进行了一项系统评价。我们根据AM修复技术建立了两个研究组,如下:软组织重新附着(STr)组和大转子保留(GTp)组。在STr组中,臀中肌和臀小肌重新附着于假体,而在GTp组中,大转子和臀肌腱得以保留。STr组进一步细分为直接重新附着和间接重新附着。计算了根据样本量调整的加权均值。
共纳入了12篇文章中的658例患者。与GTp组相比,STr组患者的肌肉骨骼肿瘤学会评分更高(75%对67.3%,P<0.001),Trendelenburg步态发生率更低(33.9%对52.4%,P<0.01),使用辅助装置行走的比例更低(30.4%对54.9%,P<0.001)。在STr组中,与直接重新附着相比,间接重新附着与更高的肌肉骨骼肿瘤学会评分(87.2%对70.1%,P<0.001)、更低的Trendelenburg步态发生率(3.8%对36.3%,P<0.001)以及使用辅助装置行走的比例(0对42.4%,P<0.001)相关。GTp组的重新附着硬件故障率为15%。
在与肿瘤相关的股骨近端置换中,与GTp相比,STr提供了更好的功能结果。从功能结果的角度来看,使用间接STr比直接STr更好。
III级