Indications and limits for modular endoprosthetic reconstruction by MUTARS implants in patients with malignant bone tumor (literature review)

Authors

  • Oleg Vyrva
  • Yanina Golovina
  • Victor Burlaka
  • Vitaliy Baev
  • Igor Shevchenko
  • Roman Malyk
  • Dmytro Mikhanovsky
  • Olga Golovina
  • Oleksandra Vyrva
  • Yuriy Yutovets

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-598720144128-134

Keywords:

malignant bone tumors, endoprosthetic replacement, modular tumor prosthesis, complications, functional result

Abstract

Modular tumor prostheses are well established today for the reconstruction of osseous defects after resection of malignant bone tumors. Almost every joint and even total bones (e. g., total femur or humerus) can be replaced with promising functional results dramatically reducing necessity for ablative procedures. During the last 30 years the 5-year survival rate of megaendoprostheses increased from 20 to 85 %. Although the complication rate with the use of the modern modular endoprostheses is constantly decreasing it is still significantly higher than in primary joint arthroplasty. Together with local tumor recurrence periprosthetic infection remains the most severe complication. Due to constant improvements of prostheses material and surgical techniques, the indications and limits of limb salvage with modular tumor prostheses are continuously changing and to some extent might have to be reconsidered. The typical indication for modular endoprostheses is a large osseous defect after resection of a malignant bone tumor of the metadiaphyseal region of a long bone in the upper or lower extremity. Involvement of major vessels to the tumor is still considered as a contraindication to limb salvage surgery. But limb salvage can nowadays be performed with modular endoprostheses and vascular reconstruction with good oncological and functional results.The functional results after reconstruction of bone defects in tumor surgery are good and can be scored according to Enneking score. In this review authors present the modular endoprosthetic systems MUTARS developed by Implantcast (Buxtehude, Germany) with discussion the indications and contraindications, complications and functional outcomes as well as a surgical technique and postoperative management this category of the patients.

References

  1. 151 endoprosthetic reconstructions for patients with primary tumors involving bone / M. R. Safran, M. H. Kody, R. S. Namba [et al.] // Contemp. Orthop. — 1994. — Vol. 29. — P. 15–25.
  2. A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system / W. F. Enneking, W. Dunham, M. C. Gebhardt [et al.] / Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 1993. — Vol. 286. — P. 241–246.
  3. Amputation and adriamycin in primary osteosarcoma / E. P. Cortes, J. F. Holland, J. J. Wang [et al.] / Engl. J. Med. — 1974. — Vol. 291. — P. 998–1000.
  4. Aseptic loosening in cemented custom-made prosthetic replacements for bone tumours of the lower limb / P. S. Unwin, S. R. Cannon, R. J. Grimer [et al.] // J. Bone Joint Surg. — 1996. — Vol. 78-B. — P. 5–13.
  5. Characteristics and outcome of infections associated with tumor endoprostheses / J. Hardes, C. Gebert, A. Schwappach [et al.] / Arch. Orthop. Trauma Surg. — 2006. — Vol. 126. — P. 289–296.
  6. Complications and surgical indications in 144 cases of nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremities treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy / P. Ruggieri, R. De Cristofaro, P. Picci [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 1993. — Vol. 295. — P. 226–238.
  7. Endoprostheses in children: first results / R. Kotz, C. Schiller, R. Windhager, P. Ritschl / Limb salvage: major reconstructions in oncologic and nontumoral conditions // F. Langlais, B. Tomeno (eds). — Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer Verlag, 1991. — P. 591–599.
  8. Endoprosthesis management of the extremities of children after resection of primary malignant bone tumors / P. Krepler, M. Dominkus, C. D. Toma, R. Kotz // Orthopade. — 2003. — Vol. 32. — P. 1013–1019.
  9. Endoprosthetic reconstruction for malignant upper extremity tumors / A. Aumar, J. J. Eckardt, F. R. Eilber [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 1999. — Vol. 360. — P. 207–220.
  10. Endoprosthetic reconstruction in 250 patients with sarcoma / G. Gosheger, C. Gebert, H. Ahrens [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2006. — Vol. 450. — P. 164–171.
  11. Endoprosthetic replacement for primary malignant tumors of the proximal femur / Y. Kabukcuoglu, R. J. Grimer, R. M. Tillman, S. R. Carter / Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 1999. — Vol. 358. — P. 8–14.
  12. Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal humerus. Long-term results / D. Kumar, R. J. Grimer, A. Abudu [et al.] // J. Bone Joint Surg. — 2003. — Vol. 85-B. — P. 717–722.
  13. Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia / R. J. Grimer, S. R. Carter, R. M. Tillman [et al.] // J. Bone Joint Surg. — 1999. — Vol. 81-B. — P. 488–194.
  14. Etiology and results of tumor endoprosthesis revision surgery in 64 patients / P. Z. Wirganowicz, J. J. Eckardt, F. J. Dorey [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 1999. — Vol. 358. — P. 64–74.
  15. Function and complications after ablative and limb-salvage therapy in lower extremity sarcoma of bone / A. J. Renard, R. P. Veth, H. W. Schreuder [et al.] // J. Surg. Oncol. — 2000. — Vol. 73. — P. 198–205.
  16. Interrelationships of clinical outcome, length of resection, and energy cost of walking after prosthetic knee replacement following resection of a malignant tumor of the distal aspect of the femur / A. Kawai, S. I. Backus, J. C. Otis, J. H. Healey / J. Bone Joint Surg. — 1998. — Vol. 80-A. — P. 822–831.
  17. Kenan S. Limb salvage in pediatric surgery. The use of the expandable prosthesis / S. Kenan, M. M. Lewis // Orthop. Clin. North Am. — 1991. — Vol. 22. — P. 121–131.
  18. Kenan S. Limb-sparing surgery in skeletally immature patients with osteosarcoma. The use of an expandable prosthesis / S. Kenan, N. Bloom, M. M. Lewis // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 1991. — Vol. 270. — P. 223–230.
  19. Lawrence W. Jr. Concepts in limb-sparing treatment of adult soft tissue sarcomas / W. Lawrence Jr. // Semin Surg. Oncol. — 1988. —Vol. 4. — P. 73–77.
  20. Leggon R. E. Limb salvage surgery with vascular reconstruction / R. E. Leggon, T. S. Huber, M. T. Scarborough // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2001. — Vol. 387. — P. 207–216.
  21. Lewis M. M. The expandable prosthesis: tumor prosthesis in children / M. M. Lewis, J. Pafford, W. J. Spires // Bone tumor management / R. Coombs, G. Friedlaender (eds). — London: Butterworths, 1987.
  22. Limb salvage surgery for primary bone sarcoma of the lower extremities: long-term consequences of endoprosthetic reconstructions / S. J. Ham, H. Schraflfordt Koops, R. P. Veth [et al.] / Ann. Surg. Oncol. — 1998. — Vol. 5. — P. 423–436.
  23. Limb salvage with tumor endoprostheses for malignant tumors of the knee / W. Plotz, H. Rechl, R. Burgkart [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2002. — Vol. 405. — P. 207–215.
  24. Local and systemic control after ablative and limb sparing surgery in patients with osteosarcoma / M. Sluga, R. Windhager, S. Lang [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 1999. — Vol. 358. — P. 120–127.
  25. Local complications after limb-salvage surgery for pediatric bone tumours: a pictorial essay / P. S. Babyn, C. E. Wihlborg, J. K. Tjong [et al.] // Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. — 2001. — Vol. 52. — P. 35–42.
  26. Long-term followup of uncemented tumor endoprostheses for the lower extremity / F. Mittermayer, P. Krepler, M. Dominkus [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2001. — Vol. 388. — P. 167–177.
  27. Long-term results of allograft replacement in the management of bone tumors / H. J. Mankin, M. C. Gebhardt, L. C. Jennings [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 1996. — Vol. 324. — P. 86–97.
  28. Long-term results of the cooperative German-Austrian-Swiss osteosarcoma study group’s protocol COSS-86 of intensive multidrug chemotherapy and surgery for osteosarcoma of the limbs / N. Fuchs, S. Bielack, D. Epler [et al.] — 1998. — Ann. Oncol. — Vol. 9. — P. 893–899.
  29. Malawer M. M. Prosthetic survival and clinical results with use of large-segment replacements in the treatment of high-grade bone sarcomas / M. M. Malawer, B. Chou // J. Bone Joint Surg. — 1995. — Vol. 77-A. — P. 1154–1165.
  30. Malignant tumor of the distal part of the femur or the proximal part of the tibia: endoprosthetic replacement or rotation-plasty. Functional outcome and quality-of-life measurements / A. Hillmann, C. Hoffmann, G. Gosheger [et al.] // J. Bone Joint Surg. — 1999. — Vol. 81. — P. 462–468.
  31. Modular megaprosthesis for proximal femoral tumors / I. Ilyas, R. Pant, A. Kurar [et al.] // Int. Orthop. — 2002. — Vol. 26. — P. 170–173.
  32. Modular prosthetic replacement of the proximal femur after resection of a bone tumour a long-term follow-up / D. Donati, M. Zavatta, E. Gozzi [et al.] // J. Bone Joint Surg. — 2001. — Vol. 83. — P. 1156–1160.
  33. Modular uncemented prosthetic reconstruction after resection of tumours of the distal femur / R. Capanna, H. G. Morris, D. Campanacci [et al.] // J. Bone Joint Surg. — 1994. — Vol. 76-B. — P. 178–186.
  34. Osteosarcoma in children: long-term functional analysis / P. U. Tunn, P. Schmidt-Peter, D. Pomraenke, P. Hohenberger // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2004. — Vol. 421. — P. 212–217.
  35. Paley D. Problems, obstacles, and complications of limb lengthening by the Ilizarov technique / D. Paley // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 1990. — Vol. 250. — P. 81–104.
  36. Prosthetic and extremity survivorship after limb salvage for sarcoma. How long do the reconstructions last? / S. M. Horowitz, D. B. Glasser, J. M. Lane, J. H. Healey / Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 1993. — Vol. 293. — P. 280–286.
  37. Prosthetic reconstruction of the proximal femur after resection for bone tumors / H. G. Morris, R. Capanna, M. Del Ben, D. Campanacci / J. Arthroplasty. — 1995. — Vol. 10. — P. 293–299.
  38. Prosthetic replacement of the distal femur for primary bone tumours / P. Roberts, D. Chan, R. J. Grimer [et al.] // J. Bone Joint Surg. — 1991. — Vol. 73-B. — P. 762–769.
  39. Reconstruction of the extensor mechanism after proximal tibia endoprosthetic replacement / J. Bickels, J. C. Wittig, Y. Kollender [et al.] // Arthroplasty. — 2001. — Vol. 16. — P. 856–862.
  40. Relationship of chemotherapy-induced necrosis and surgical margins to local recurrence in osteosarcoma / P. Picci, L. Sangiorgi, B. T. Rougraff [et al.] // J. Clin. Oncol. — 1994. — Vol. 12. — P. 2699–2705.
  41. Revision of the Kotz type of tumour endoprosthesis for the lower limb / F. Mittermayer, R. Windhager, M. Dominkus [et al.] // J. Bone Joint Surg. — 2002. — Vol. 84-B. — P. 401–406.
  42. Risk of amputation following limb salvage surgery with endoprosthetic replacement, in a consecutive series of 1261 patients / L. M. Jeys, R. J. Grimer, S. R. Carter, R. M. Tillman // Int. Orthop. — 2003. — Vol. 27. — P. 160–163.
  43. Ross A. C. Endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal humerus / A. C. Ross, J. N. Wilson, J. T. Scales // J. Bone Joint Surg. — 1987. — Vol. 69-B. — P. 656–661.
  44. Soft tissue reconstruction of megaprostheses using a trevira tube / G. Gosheger, A. Hillmann, N. Lindner [et al.] / Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2001. — Vol. 393. — P. 264–271.
  45. Survivorship analysis of 141 modular metallic endoprostheses at early follow up / E. N. Zeegen, L. A. Aponte-Tinao, F. J. Hornicek [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2004. — Vol. 420. — P. 239–250.
  46. The limits of saving the extremity-amputation versus resection / R. Kotz, P. Ritschl, D. Kropej [et al.] // Z. Orthop. Ihre Grenzgeb. — 1992. — Vol. 130. — P. 299–305.
  47. The UCLA experience in limb salvage surgery for malignant tumors / J. J. Eckardt, F. R. Eilber, F. J. Dorey, J. M. Mirra // Orthopedics. — 1985. — Vol. 8. — P. 612–621.
  48. Two-stage revision for infected endoprostheses used in tumor surgery / R. J. Grimer, M. Belthur, C. Chandrasekar [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2002. — Vol. 395. — P. 193–203.
  49. Ward W. G. Total femoral endoprosthetic reconstruction / W. G. Ward, F. Dorey, J. J. Eckardt // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 1995. — Vol. 316. — P. 195–206.
  50. Wilkins R. M. The Phenix expandable prosthesis: early American experience / R. M. Wilkins, A. Soubeiran // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2001. — Vol. 382. — P. 51–58.

Downloads

How to Cite

Vyrva, O., Golovina, Y., Burlaka, V., Baev, V., Shevchenko, I., Malyk, R., Mikhanovsky, D., Golovina, O., Vyrva, O., & Yutovets, Y. (2014). Indications and limits for modular endoprosthetic reconstruction by MUTARS implants in patients with malignant bone tumor (literature review). ORTHOPAEDICS TRAUMATOLOGY and PROSTHETICS, (4), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-598720144128-134

Issue

No. 4 (2014)

Section

DIGESTS AND REVIEWS

License

Copyright (c) 2014 Oleg Vyrva, Yanina Golovina, Victor Burlaka, Vitaliy Baev, Igor Shevchenko, Roman Malyk, Dmytro Mikhanovsky, Olga Golovina, Olena Vyrva, Y. Yutovets

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).