Surgical Oncology
Volume 18, Issue 4 , Pages 343-349, December 2009

Endoprosthetic proximal femur replacement: Metastatic versus primary tumors

  • Benjamin K. Potter

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation, University of Miami School of Medicine, PO Box 016960, Miami, FL 33101, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Orthopaedics, Musculoskeletal Oncology Division, University of Miami Hospital, 1400 NW 12th Avenue, Rm 4036, Miami, FL 33136, USA. Tel.: +1 305 325 4581; fax: +1 305 325 3928.
  • ,
  • Vincent E. Chow

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation, University of Miami School of Medicine, PO Box 016960, Miami, FL 33101, USA
  • ,
  • Sheila C. Adams

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, 500 Parnassus Avenue, MUW 320, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA
  • ,
  • G. Douglas Letson

      Affiliations

    • Sarcoma Department, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
  • ,
  • H. Thomas Temple

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation, University of Miami School of Medicine, PO Box 016960, Miami, FL 33101, USA

Accepted 28 August 2008.

Abstract 

Few studies have examined the impact of underlying diagnosis on the functional and oncologic outcomes following endoprosthetic proximal femur replacement (PFR). We performed a retrospective review of 61 consecutive cemented bipolar PFR in 59 patients for treatment neoplastic lesions with a minimum follow-up of 24months. Twenty-two patients had primary bone tumors and 39 had metastatic disease. Average follow-up for the 30 surviving patients was 55.4months and the mean postoperative survival for the 29 patients who died was 12.2months. Patients with primary tumors demonstrated significantly better functional outcomes than those with metastatic disease, with mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society functional scores of 80.2 and 66.8%, respectively (p=0.0002). Age correlated inversely with functional scores (r=−0.48; p=0.0002), while femoral resection length did not. Preoperative pathologic fracture did not appear to adversely impact final functional outcomes. The Kaplan–Meier 5-year implant survival estimate was 92.5%, with aseptic loosening as the endpoint. Both functional results and survival are increased for primary tumors versus metastatic disease following PFR. However, PFR results in excellent local disease control, reliable pain relief and good functional results in both groups, with prosthesis survival exceeding that of the patient in many cases.

Keywords: Proximal femur, Endoprosthesis, Megaprosthesis, Sarcoma, Metastasis, Tumor

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Level of evidence: therapeutic study, level IV (case series; no or historical control group).

PII: S0960-7404(08)00086-8

doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2008.08.007

Surgical Oncology
Volume 18, Issue 4 , Pages 343-349, December 2009