Systematic review and meta-analysis of modular endoprosthesis and allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction results after bone tumor resection

Authors

  • Oleg Vyrva Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0597-4472
  • Yanina Golovina Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1605-9109
  • Roman Malyk Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9070-4834
  • Оlga Golovina Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-5987202025-15

Keywords:

модульне ендопротезування, алокомпозитне ендопротезування, післярезекційні дефекти кісток і суглобів, пухлини кісток

Abstract

Introduction: in order to replace large post-resection defects of long bones, modular endoprostheses (ME), segmental bone allografts and allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) are predominantly used (a technique combining both methods). Objective: to conduct a comparative analysis of studies/papers (according to the literature data) as for using of modular endoprosthetics and allograft-prosthetic composite after bone tumor resection. Methods: we have done comparative statistical analysis of the literature data (44 studies) and a meta-analysis of the treatment results of patients with long bone malignant tumors using ME and APC (4 studies). Statistical processing (meta-analysis) of the data was carried out with certified Cochrane Collaboration software Review manager 5.3. Results: a total of 2840 patients were analyzed (comparative analysis). For the statistical analysis, specific criteria were selected: infectious complications, nonunion of allograft and recipient bone, bone fractures, structural fractures (mechanical complications), allograft resorption, functional result according to the MSTS. We have selected 4 comparative studies for functional results (by meta-analysis method) assessment. There are results of 2 techniques for femoral defect replacement: ME and APC. These studies were retrospective, included 157 patients. Conclusions: better functional results and less infection complications were observed at APC technique for proximal humerus replacement compare to ME. The results of both methods of comparative analysis for the proximal femur revealed the absence of hip head dislocation and a significant reduction an infection rates with allograft-prosthetic composite. As a result of the meta-analysis, it has been showed that APC has a statistically significant advantages of these functional results (MSTS score) over the tumor ME for proximal femur tumor surgery procedures.

Author Biographies

Oleg Vyrva, Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

MD, Prof. in Traumatology and Orthopаedics

Yanina Golovina, Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

PhD in Traumatology and Orthopaedics

Roman Malyk, Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kharkiv

PhD in Traumatology and Orthopaedics

References

  1. Vyrva, O., Golovina, O., & Malyk, R. (2017). Bone allograft in the surgical treatment of patients with tumors of long bones. Сlinical oncology, 2(26), 12-17. [in Russian]
  2. Vyrva, O., Golovina, O., & Malyk, R. (2015). Allograft-prosthesis composite for surgical treatment in patients with malignant tumors of the long bones (review). Orthopaedics, traumatology and prosthetics, (2), 120. doi: 10.15674/0030-598720152120-125. [in Russian]
  3. Henderson, E. R., O’Connor, M. I., Ruggieri, P., Windhager, R., Funovics, P. T., Gibbons, C. L., ... & Letson, G. D. (2014). Classification of failure of limb salvage after reconstructive surgery for bone tumours. The Bone & Joint Journal, 96-B(11), 1436-1440. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.96b11.34747
  4. Tikhova, G. P. (2013). Graphical portrait of meta-analysis results. Regional anesthesia and acute pain treatment, 7(2), 48-52. [in Russian]
  5. Kassab, M., Dumaine, V., Babinet, A., Ouaknine, M., Tomeno, B., & Anract, P. (2005). Les reconstructions apres resection tumorale de l’extrémité supérieure de l’humérus. Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Réparatrice de l'Appareil Moteur, 91(1), 15-23. doi: 10.1016/s0035-1040(05)84271-0
  6. Schmolders, J., Koob, S., Schepers, P., Kehrer, M., Frey, S. P., Wirtz, D. C., … & Strauss, A. C. (2016). Silver-coated endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal humerus in case of tumour—is there an increased risk of periprosthetic infection by using a trevira tube? International Orthopaedics, 41(2), 423-428. doi: org/10.1007/s00264-016-3329-6
  7. Dubina, A., Shiu, B., Gilotra, M., Hasan, S. A., Lerman, D., & Ng, V. Y. (2017). What is the optimal reconstruction option after the resection of proximal humeral tumors? A systematic review. The Open Orthopaedics Journal, 11(1), 203-211. doi: 10.2174/1874325001711010203
  8. Marulanda, G. A., Henderson, E., Cheong, D., & Letson, G. D. (2010). Proximal and total humerus reconstruction with the use of an Aortograft mesh. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 468(11), 2896-2903. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1418-1
  9. Lazerges, C., Dagneaux, L., Degeorge, B., Tardy, N., Coulet, B., & Chammas, M. (2017). Composite reverse shoulder arthroplasty can provide good function and quality of life in cases of malignant tumour of the proximal humerus. International Orthopaedics, 41(12), 2619-2625. doi: 10.1007/s00264-017-3538-7
  10. Ruggieri, P., Mavrogenis, A. F., Guerra, G., & Mercuri, M. (2011). Preliminary results after reconstruction of bony defects of the proximal humerus with an allograft-resurfacing composite. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 93 (8), 1098-1103. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.93b8.26011
  11. Abdeen, A., Hoang, B. H., Athanasian, E. A., Morris, C. D., Boland, P. J., & Healey, J. H. (2009). Allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction of the proximal part of the humerus. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 91(10), 2406-2415. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.h.00815
  12. Black, A. W., Szabo, R. M., & Titelman, R. M. (2007). Treatment of malignant tumors of the proximal humerus with allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 16(5), 525-533. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2006.12.006
  13. Chacon, A., Virani, N., Shannon, R., Levy, J. C., Pupello, D., & Frankle, M. (2009). Revision arthroplasty with use of a reverse shoulder prosthesis-allograft composite. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 91(1), 119-127. doi: org/10.2106/jbjs.h.00094
  14. Potter, B. K., Adams, S. C., Pitcher, J. D., Malinin, T. I., & Temple, H. T. (2008). Proximal humerus reconstructions for tumors. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 467(4), 1035-1041. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0531-x
  15. Teunis, T., Nota, S. P., Hornicek, F. J., Schwab, J. H., & Lozano-Calderón, S. A. (2014). Outcome after reconstruction of the proximal humerus for tumor resection: A systematic review. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 472(7), 2245-2253. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3474-4
  16. Wang, Z., Guo, Z., Li, J., Li, X., & Sang, H. (2010). Functional outcomes and complications of reconstruction of the proximal humerus after intra-articular tumor resection. Orthopaedic Surgery, 2(1), 19-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-7861.2009.00058.x
  17. Ueda, T., Kakunaga, S., Takenaka, S., Araki, N., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Constrained total hip megaprosthesis for primary periacetabular tumors. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 471(3), 741-749. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2625-8
  18. Hardes, J., Von Eiff, C., Streitbuerger, A., Balke, M., Budny, T., Henrichs, M. P., Hauschild, G., & Ahrens, H. (2010). Reduction of periprosthetic infection with silver-coated megaprostheses in patients with bone sarcoma. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 101(5), 389-395. doi: 10.1002/jso.21498
  19. Parvizi, J., Tarity, T. D., Slenker, N., Wade, F., Trappler, R., Hozack, W. J., & Sim, F. H. (2007). Proximal femoral replacement in patients with non-neoplastic conditions. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 89(5), 1036-1043. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200705000-00016
  20. Gosal, G., Boparai, A., & Makkar, G. (2015). Long-term outcome of endoprosthetic replacement for proximal femur giant cell tumor. Nigerian Journal of Surgery, 21(2), 143. doi: 10.4103/1117-6806.162583
  21. Ruggieri, P., Bosco, G., Pala, E., Errani, C., & Mercuri, M. (2010). Local recurrence, survival and function after total femur resection and Megaprosthetic reconstruction for bone sarcomas. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 468(11), 2860-2866. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1476-4
  22. Bruns, J., Delling, G., Gruber, H., Lohmann, C. H., & Habermann, C. R. (2007). Cementless fixation of megaprostheses using a conical fluted stem in the treatment of bone tumours. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 89 (8), 1084-1087. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.89b8.19236
  23. Bertani, A., Helix, M., Louis, M., Rochwerger, A., & Curvale, G. (2009). Total hip arthroplasty in severe segmental femoral bone loss situations: Use of a reconstruction modular stem design (JVC IX™). Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 95(7), 491-497. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2009.07.011
  24. Calabró, T., Van Rooyen, R., Piraino, I., Pala, E., Trovarelli, G., Panagopoulos, G. N., … & Ruggieri, P. (2016). Reconstruction of the proximal femur with a modular resection prosthesis. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 26(4), 415-421. doi: 10.1007/s00590-016-1764-0
  25. Tan, P. K., & Tan, M. H. (2009). Functional outcome study of mega-endoprosthetic reconstruction in limbs with bone tumour surgery. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, 38, 192-196
  26. McGoveran, B. M., Davis, A. M., Gross, A. E., & Bell, R. S. (1999). Evaluation of the allograftprosthesis composite technique for proximal femoral reconstruction after resection of a primary bone tumour. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 42(1), 37–45
  27. Donati, D., Giacomini, S., Gozzi, E., & Mercuri, M. (2002). Proximal femur reconstruction by an allograft prosthesis composite. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 394, 192-200. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200201000-00023
  28. Langlais, F., Lambotte, J. C., Collin, P., & Thomazeau, H. (2003). Long-term results of allograft composite total hip prostheses for tumors. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 414, 197-211. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000079270.91782.23
  29. Tang, F., Min, L., Duan, H., Zhou, Y., Zhang, W., Shi, R., & Tu, C. (2015). Cemented allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction for the proximal femur tumor. OncoTargets and Therapy, 2261. doi: 10.2147/ott.s85788
  30. Ye, Z. M., Li, W. X., Yang, D. S. & Tao, H. M. (2005). Repairing bone and joint defect after tumorexcision with allograft/prosthetic composite arthroplasty: zhejiang da xuebao. Yi xue ban J Zhejiang Univ Med Sci, 34(5), 400–404
  31. Subhadrabandhu, S., Takeuchi, A., Yamamoto, N., Shirai, T., Nishida, H., Hayashi, K., … & Tsuchiya, H. (2015). Frozen autograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction in malignant bone tumors. Orthopedics, 38(10), e911-e918. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20151002-59
  32. Titus, V., & Clayer, M. (2008). Protecting a patellar ligament reconstruction after proximal tibial resection: A simplified approach. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 466(7), 1749-1754. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0239-y
  33. Calori, G. M., Mazza, E. L., Vaienti, L., Mazzola, S., Colombo, A., Gala, L., & Colombo, M. (2016). Reconstruction of patellar tendon following implantation of proximal tibia megaprosthesis for the treatment of post-traumatic septic bone defects. Injury, 47, S77-S82. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(16)30843-9
  34. Chim, H., Tan, B., Tan, M. H., Tan, K., & Song, C. (2007). Optimizing the use of local muscle flaps for knee Megaprosthesis coverage. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 59(4), 398-403. doi: 10.1097/01.sap.0000258955.27987.17
  35. Hu, C., Chen, S., Chen, C., Chang, Y., Ueng, S. W., & Shih, H. (2017). Superior survivorship of Cementless vs cemented Diaphyseal fixed modular rotating-hinged knee Megaprosthesis at 7 years' follow-up. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 32(6), 1940-1945. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.026
  36. Ilyas, I., Kurar, A., Moreau, P., & Younge, D. (2001). Modular megaprosthesis for distal femoral tumors. International Orthopaedics, 25(6), 375-377. doi: 10.1007/s002640100290
  37. Pala, E., Trovarelli, G., Calabrò, T., Angelini, A., Abati, C. N., & Ruggieri, P. (2014). Survival of modern knee tumor Megaprostheses: Failures, functional results, and a comparative statistical analysis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 473(3), 891-899. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3699-2
  38. Ahlmann, E. R., & Menendez, L. R. (2006). Intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction for diaphyseal bone tumours. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 88(11), 1487-1491. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.88b11.18038
  39. Staals, E. L., Colangeli, M., Ali, N., Casanova, J. M., Donati, D. M., & Manfrini, M. (2015). Are complications associated with the Repiphysis® expandable distal femoral prosthesis acceptable for its continued use? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 473(9), 3003-3013. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4355-1
  40. Zimel, M. N., Farfalli, G. L., Zindman, A. M., Riedel, E. R., Morris, C. D., Boland, P. J., & Healey, J. H. (2015). Revision distal femoral arthroplasty with the compress® prosthesis has a low rate of mechanical failure at 10 years. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 474(2), 528-536. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4552-y
  41. Cho, W. H., Song, W. S., Jeon, D., Kong, C., Kim, J. I., & Lee, S. (2011). Cause of infection in proximal tibial endoprosthetic reconstructions. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 132(2), 163-169. doi: 10.1007/s00402-011-1405-3
  42. Moon, B. S., Gilbert, N. F., Cannon, C. P., Lin, P. P., & Lewis, V. O. (2013). Distal femur allograft prosthetic composite reconstruction for short proximal femur segments following tumor resection. Advances in Orthopedics, 2013, 1-5. doi: 10.1155/2013/397456
  43. Farfalli, G. L., Aponte-Tinao, L. A., Ayerza, M. A., Muscolo, D. L., Boland, P. J., Morris, C. D., … & Healey, J. H. (2013). Comparison between constrained and Semiconstrained knee allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions. Sarcoma, 2013, 1-8. doi: 10.1155/2013/489652
  44. Wilkins, R. M., & Kelly, C. M. (2002). Revision of the failed distal femoral replacement to allograft prosthetic composite. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 397, 114-118. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200204000-00016
  45. Donati, D., Colangeli, M., Colangeli, S., Di Bella, C., & Mercuri, M. (2008). Allograft-prosthetic composite in the proximal tibia after bone tumor resection. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 466(2), 459-465. doi: 10.1007/s11999-007-0055-9
  46. Gilbert, N. F., Yasko, A. W., Oates, S. D., Lewis, V. O., Cannon, C. P., & Lin, P. P. (2009). Allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction of the proximal part of the tibia. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 91(7), 1646-1656. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.g.01542
  47. Jeon, D., Kim, M. S., Cho, W. H., Song, W. S., & Lee, S. (2007). Pasteurized autograft-prosthesis composite for reconstruction of proximal tibia in 13 sarcoma patients. Journal of Surgical Oncology, 96(7), 590-597. doi: 10.1002/jso.20840
  48. Benedetti, M. G., Bonatti, E., Malfitano, C., & Donati, D. (2013). Comparison of allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction and modular prosthetic replacement in proximal femur bone tumors. Acta Orthopaedica, 84(2), 218-223. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.773119
  49. Anract, P., Coste, J., Vastel, L., Jeanrot, C., Mascard, E., & Tomeno, B. (2000). Proximal femoral reconstruction with megaprosthesis versus allograft prosthesis composite. A comparative study of functional results: complications and longevity in 41 cases. Revue de Chirurgie Orthopеdique et Réparatrice de l Appareil Moteu, 86(3), 278–288
  50. Farid, Y., Lin, P. P., Lewis, V. O., & Yasko, A. W. (2006). Endoprosthetic and allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction of the proximal femur for bone neoplasms. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 442, 223-229. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000181491.39048.fe
  51. Zehr, R. J., Enneking, W. F., & Scarborough, M. T. (1996). Allograft-prosthesis composite versus Megaprosthesis in proximal femoral reconstruction. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 322, 174-223. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199601000-00026
  52. Gautam, D., & Malhotra, R. (2018). Megaprosthesis versus allograft prosthesis composite for massive skeletal defects. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma, 9(1), 63-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2017.09.010

Downloads

How to Cite

Vyrva, O., Golovina, Y., Malyk, R., & Golovina О. (2023). Systematic review and meta-analysis of modular endoprosthesis and allograft-prosthetic composite reconstruction results after bone tumor resection. ORTHOPAEDICS TRAUMATOLOGY and PROSTHETICS, (2), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-5987202025-15

Issue

No. 2 (2020)

Section

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2020 Oleg Vyrva, Yanina Golovina, Roman Malyk, Оlga Golovina

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The authors retain the right of authorship of their manuscript and pass the journal the right of the first publication of this article, which automatically become available from the date of publication under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to freely distribute the published manuscript with mandatory linking to authors of the original research and the first publication of this one in this journal.

Authors have the right to enter into a separate supplemental agreement on the additional non-exclusive distribution of manuscript in the form in which it was published by the journal (i.e. to put work in electronic storage of an institution or publish as a part of the book) while maintaining the reference to the first publication of the manuscript in this journal.

The editorial policy of the journal allows authors and encourages manuscript accommodation online (i.e. in storage of an institution or on the personal websites) as before submission of the manuscript to the editorial office, and during its editorial processing because it contributes to productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of the published manuscript citation (see The Effect of Open Access).