Reconstruction with biological methods following intercalary excision of femoral diaphyseal tumors

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess outcomes of biological (nonvascularized fibula grafts and extracorporeal irradiated autologous bone grafts) methods used for reconstruction of intercalary defects after resection of femoral diaphyseal tumors. Materials and Methods: This study included 28 pati...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Abhijeet Ashok Salunke, Jaymin Shah, Tapan Singh Chauhan, Rahul Parmar, Ashok Kumar, Himanshu Koyani, Nikhil Garg, Makarand Bhole, Manthan Merja, Jyotindra Pandit, Shashank Pandya, Mayur Kamani
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2019-01-01
Series:Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499018822242
id doaj-bd041fc7c72348e3944f494efbd74f08
record_format Article
spelling doaj-bd041fc7c72348e3944f494efbd74f082020-11-25T04:09:08ZengSAGE PublishingJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery2309-49902019-01-012710.1177/2309499018822242Reconstruction with biological methods following intercalary excision of femoral diaphyseal tumorsAbhijeet Ashok SalunkeJaymin ShahTapan Singh ChauhanRahul ParmarAshok KumarHimanshu KoyaniNikhil GargMakarand BholeManthan MerjaJyotindra PanditShashank PandyaMayur KamaniAim: The aim of this study was to assess outcomes of biological (nonvascularized fibula grafts and extracorporeal irradiated autologous bone grafts) methods used for reconstruction of intercalary defects after resection of femoral diaphyseal tumors. Materials and Methods: This study included 28 patients who had undergone intercalary resection in femoral diaphyseal tumors between 2011 and 2016. The mean follow-up period was 24 months (range 12–57 months). Results: The mean union time for diaphyseo-diaphyseal union was 10.5 and 11 months in nonvascularized fibula group and extracorporeal radiotherapy (ECRT) group, respectively. The mean union time for metaphyseo-diaphyseal union was 6.5 months in both nonvascularized fibula and ECRT groups. Six patients had distant metastasis, and one patient had local recurrence. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 28 at the last follow-up. Two patients had surgical site infection in the nonvascularized fibula group. Implant failure was found in one patient of the ECRT group requiring revision surgery. Three patients had nonunion (two from the nonvascularized fibula group and one from the ECRT group). Conclusion: The present study indicates that the biological reconstruction modalities provide good functional outcomes in diaphyseal tumors of femur. Nonvasularized fibula and ECRT-treated autografts reconstruction provides good results, and union timing is comparable. The outcomes of the current study are promising as compared to the results in the reviewed literature. The reconstruction method depends on the resources available at the oncological center and the conversance with the method of the treating surgeon.https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499018822242
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Abhijeet Ashok Salunke
Jaymin Shah
Tapan Singh Chauhan
Rahul Parmar
Ashok Kumar
Himanshu Koyani
Nikhil Garg
Makarand Bhole
Manthan Merja
Jyotindra Pandit
Shashank Pandya
Mayur Kamani
spellingShingle Abhijeet Ashok Salunke
Jaymin Shah
Tapan Singh Chauhan
Rahul Parmar
Ashok Kumar
Himanshu Koyani
Nikhil Garg
Makarand Bhole
Manthan Merja
Jyotindra Pandit
Shashank Pandya
Mayur Kamani
Reconstruction with biological methods following intercalary excision of femoral diaphyseal tumors
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery
author_facet Abhijeet Ashok Salunke
Jaymin Shah
Tapan Singh Chauhan
Rahul Parmar
Ashok Kumar
Himanshu Koyani
Nikhil Garg
Makarand Bhole
Manthan Merja
Jyotindra Pandit
Shashank Pandya
Mayur Kamani
author_sort Abhijeet Ashok Salunke
title Reconstruction with biological methods following intercalary excision of femoral diaphyseal tumors
title_short Reconstruction with biological methods following intercalary excision of femoral diaphyseal tumors
title_full Reconstruction with biological methods following intercalary excision of femoral diaphyseal tumors
title_fullStr Reconstruction with biological methods following intercalary excision of femoral diaphyseal tumors
title_full_unstemmed Reconstruction with biological methods following intercalary excision of femoral diaphyseal tumors
title_sort reconstruction with biological methods following intercalary excision of femoral diaphyseal tumors
publisher SAGE Publishing
series Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery
issn 2309-4990
publishDate 2019-01-01
description Aim: The aim of this study was to assess outcomes of biological (nonvascularized fibula grafts and extracorporeal irradiated autologous bone grafts) methods used for reconstruction of intercalary defects after resection of femoral diaphyseal tumors. Materials and Methods: This study included 28 patients who had undergone intercalary resection in femoral diaphyseal tumors between 2011 and 2016. The mean follow-up period was 24 months (range 12–57 months). Results: The mean union time for diaphyseo-diaphyseal union was 10.5 and 11 months in nonvascularized fibula group and extracorporeal radiotherapy (ECRT) group, respectively. The mean union time for metaphyseo-diaphyseal union was 6.5 months in both nonvascularized fibula and ECRT groups. Six patients had distant metastasis, and one patient had local recurrence. The mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score was 28 at the last follow-up. Two patients had surgical site infection in the nonvascularized fibula group. Implant failure was found in one patient of the ECRT group requiring revision surgery. Three patients had nonunion (two from the nonvascularized fibula group and one from the ECRT group). Conclusion: The present study indicates that the biological reconstruction modalities provide good functional outcomes in diaphyseal tumors of femur. Nonvasularized fibula and ECRT-treated autografts reconstruction provides good results, and union timing is comparable. The outcomes of the current study are promising as compared to the results in the reviewed literature. The reconstruction method depends on the resources available at the oncological center and the conversance with the method of the treating surgeon.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2309499018822242
work_keys_str_mv AT abhijeetashoksalunke reconstructionwithbiologicalmethodsfollowingintercalaryexcisionoffemoraldiaphysealtumors
AT jayminshah reconstructionwithbiologicalmethodsfollowingintercalaryexcisionoffemoraldiaphysealtumors
AT tapansinghchauhan reconstructionwithbiologicalmethodsfollowingintercalaryexcisionoffemoraldiaphysealtumors
AT rahulparmar reconstructionwithbiologicalmethodsfollowingintercalaryexcisionoffemoraldiaphysealtumors
AT ashokkumar reconstructionwithbiologicalmethodsfollowingintercalaryexcisionoffemoraldiaphysealtumors
AT himanshukoyani reconstructionwithbiologicalmethodsfollowingintercalaryexcisionoffemoraldiaphysealtumors
AT nikhilgarg reconstructionwithbiologicalmethodsfollowingintercalaryexcisionoffemoraldiaphysealtumors
AT makarandbhole reconstructionwithbiologicalmethodsfollowingintercalaryexcisionoffemoraldiaphysealtumors
AT manthanmerja reconstructionwithbiologicalmethodsfollowingintercalaryexcisionoffemoraldiaphysealtumors
AT jyotindrapandit reconstructionwithbiologicalmethodsfollowingintercalaryexcisionoffemoraldiaphysealtumors
AT shashankpandya reconstructionwithbiologicalmethodsfollowingintercalaryexcisionoffemoraldiaphysealtumors
AT mayurkamani reconstructionwithbiologicalmethodsfollowingintercalaryexcisionoffemoraldiaphysealtumors
_version_ 1724423206223216640