Allograft-prosthesis composite for surgical treatment in patients with malignant tumors of the long bones (review)

Authors

  • Oleg Vyrva
  • Olga Golovina SI «Sytenko Institute of Spine and Joint Pathology National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine», Kharkiv,
  • Roman Malyk

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-598720152120-125

Keywords:

allograft-prosthesis composite, bone allografts, bone tumors

Abstract

This review is dedicated to substitution of bone defects in case of surgical treatment of patients with malignant bone tumors of the extremities. The most frequent locations of tumors are the areas in proximal humerus, femur and tibia. In present time in treatment of the patients with such lesions a promising method is allograft-prosthesis composite (APC) which was firstly used in the mid-1980s. In the article we present the results of research on benefits and drawbacks of existing methods of substitution of large bone defects comparing to APC. Particularly, in cases of arthroplasties refixation of muscles and tendons to the implant is a challenge problem, and a nascence of immune reactions, lysis and fracture of a graft are disadvantages of alloplasty of bone defects. APC method combines the advantages of arthroplasty and alloplasty. The authors presented the features of this technique proper selection and strict observance of which is indisputable condition of successful treatment outcomes. The main problem to be solved during surgery is stable allograft fixation to the endoprosthesis and allocomposite endoprosthesis to the bone of recipient. They might be solved through the use of cement fixation of allocomposite endoprosthesis and different types of osteotomy. Particular attention is paid to the restoration of soft tissue around the joints during surgery. The main objective of this phase of surgery is to ensure the stability of the joint in operated limb segment and biological refixation of muscles which creates prerequisites for restoration of function of the limb. The paper describes some types of allografts that can be used for APC and methods of their manufacturing (with help of low temperatures or γ-radiation). We presented indications and contraindications to APC. The main complications after APC experts called infectious ones as well as resorption, fractures and nonunion of allografts with bone.

References

  1. Akkus O. Fracture resistance of gamma radiation sterilized cortical bone allografts / O. Akkus, C. M. Rimnac // J. Orthop. Res. — 2001. — Vol. 19 (5). — P. 927–934, doi: 10.1016/S0736-0266(01)00004-3.
  2. Akkus O. Free radical scavenging alleviates the biomechani¬cal impairment of gamma radiation sterilized bone tissue / O. Akkus, R. M. Belaney, P. Das // J. Orthop. Res. — 2005. — Vol. 23 (4). — P. 838–845, doi: 10.1016/j.orthres.2005.01.007.
  3. Allograft-prosthesis composites after bone tumor resection at the proximal tibia / D. J. Biau, V. Dumaine, A. Babinet [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res.. — 2007. — Vol. 456. — P. 211–217.
  4. Allograft-prosthetic composite in the proximal tibia after bone tumor resection / D. Donati, M. Colangeli, S. Colangeli [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2008. — Vol. 466. — P. 459–465, doi: 10/1007/s11999-007-0055-9.
  5. Allograft-prosthetic composite reconsruction of the proximal part of the tibia / N. F. Gilbert, A. W. Yasko, S. D. Oates [et al.] // J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. — 2009. — Vol. 91. — P. 1646–1656, doi: 10.2106/SBJS.G.01542.
  6. Bipolar proximal femoral replacement prostheses for musculo¬skeletal neoplasms / J. L. Finstein, J. J. King, E. J. Fox [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2007. — Vol. 459. — P. 66–75.
  7. Comparison between constrained and semiconstrained knee allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions / G. L. Farfalli, L. A. Aponte-Tinao, M. A. Ayerza [et al.] // Sarcoma. — 2013. — Vol. 2013. — Article 489652, doi: 10.1155/2013/489652.
  8. Comparison of allograft reconstruction and modular prosthetic replacement in proximal femur bone tumors / M. G. Bene¬detti, E. Bonatti, C. Malfitano, D. Donati // Acta Ortho¬paedica. — 2013. — Vol. 84 (2). — P. 218–223, doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.773119.
  9. Complications of irradiated allografts in orthopaedic tumor surgery / S. A. Lietman, W. W. Tomford, M. C. Gebhardt [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2000. — Vol. 375. — P. 214–217, doi: 10.1097/00003086-200006000-00026.
  10. Continuity and function of patellar tendon host-donor in tibial allograft / M. A. Ayerza, L. A. Aponte-Tinao, E. Ab¬alo, D. L. Muscolo // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2006. — Vol. 450. — P. 33–38.
  11. Evaluation of the allograft-prosthesis composite technique for proximal femoral reconstruction after resection of a primary bone tumour / B. M. McGoveran, A. M. Davis, A. E. Gross, R. S. Bell // Can. J. Surj. — 1999. — Vol. 42 (1). — P. 37–45.
  12. Factors affecting nonunion of the allograft-host junction / F. J. Hornicek, M. C. Gebhardt, W. W. Tomford [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2001. — Vol. 382. — P. 87–98.
  13. Langlais F. Limb salvage: major reconstructions in oncologic and nontumoral conditions / F. Langlais, B. Tomeno. — Hei¬delberg, Germany: Springer, 1991. — 826 p.
  14. Long-term results of allograft composite total hip prostheses for tumors / F. Langlais, J. C. Lambotte, P. Collin, H. Thomazeau // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2003. — Vol. 414. — P. 197–211.
  15. Mankin H. J. Infection in massive bone allografts / H. J. Man-kin, F. J. Hornicek, K. A. Raskin // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2005. — Vol. 432. — P. 210–216.
  16. Miler B. J. Intercalary allograft reconstructions using a com¬pressible intramedullary nail / B. J. Miler, W. W. Virkus // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2010. — Vol. 468. — P. 2507–2513, doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1260-5.
  17. Proximal femoral allograft for major segmental femoral bone loss: a systematic literature review / B. A. Rogers, A. Stern¬heim, D. Backstein [et al.] // Advances in Orthopedics. — 2011. — P. 1–7, doi: 10.4061/2011/257572.
  18. Proximal femur allograft-prosthesis with compression plates and a short stem / D. L. Muscolo, G. L. Farfali, L. A. Aponte-Tinao, M. A. Ayerza. // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2010. — Vol. 468. — P. 224–230, doi: 10/1007/s11999-009-0903-x.
  19. Results of 32 allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions of the proximal femur / D. J. Bian, F. Larousserie, F. Thevenin [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2010. — Vol. 468. — P. 834–845, doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1132-z.
  20. Revision of the deficient proximal femur with a proximal femoral allograft / O. Safir, C. F. Kellett, M. Flint [et al.] // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 2009. — Vol. 467. — P. 206–212, doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0573-0.
  21. Survival of massive allografts in segmental oncological bone defect reconstructions / P. H. Bullens, N. M. Minderhoud, M. C. de Waal Malefijt [et al.] // International Orthopaedics. — 2009. — Vol. 33 (3). — P. 757–760, doi: 10.1007/s00264-008-0700-2.
  22. The effect of gamma radiation sterilization on the fatigue crack propagation resistance of human cortical bone / E. J. Mitchell, A. M. Stawarz, R. Kayacan, C. M. Rimnac // J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. — 2004. — Vol. 86. — P. 2648–2657.
  23. The use of allograft prosthesis composite for extensive proximal femoral bone deficiencies: a 2- to 9,8-year follow-up study / S. H. Lee, Y. J. Ahn, S. J. Chung [et al.] // J. Arthroplasty. — 2009. — Vol. 24 (8). — P. 1241–1248, doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.06.006.
  24. Treatment of malignant bone tumours by extracorpore¬ally irradiated autograft-prosthetic composite arthroplasty / W. M. Chen, T. N. Chen, C. K. H // J. of Bone Joint Surg. Br. — 2002. — Vol. 84-B. — P. 1156–1161.
  25. Zehr R. J. Allograft-prosthesis composite versus megaprosthe¬sis in proximal femoral reconstruction. / R. J. Zehr, W. F. En¬neking, M. T. Scarborough // Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. — 1996. — Vol. 322. — P. 207–223, doi: 10.1097/00003086-199601000-00026.

Downloads

How to Cite

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), 120–125. https://doi.org/10.15674/0030-598720152120-125

Issue

No. 2 (2015)

Section

DIGESTS AND REVIEWS

License

Copyright (c) 2015 Oleg Vyrva, Olga Golovina, Roman Malyk

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).