Use of endoprostheses for proximal femur metastases results in a rapid rehabilitation and low risk of implant failure. A prospective population-based study

Background and objectives: Endoprosthesis is considered a durable implant for treating metastatic bone disease of the proximal femur (MBDf). Objectives: • What is the revision risk after surgery for MBDf using endoprosthesis versus internal fixation?• When do patients with MBDf treated with endopros...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Michala Skovlund Sørensen, Peter Frederik Horstmann, Klaus Hindsø, Michael Mørk Petersen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2019-12-01
Series:Journal of Bone Oncology
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212137419301460
id doaj-f6cae79be8244a81a0394329937f097d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f6cae79be8244a81a0394329937f097d2020-11-25T01:37:58ZengElsevierJournal of Bone Oncology2212-13742019-12-0119Use of endoprostheses for proximal femur metastases results in a rapid rehabilitation and low risk of implant failure. A prospective population-based studyMichala Skovlund Sørensen0Peter Frederik Horstmann1Klaus Hindsø2Michael Mørk Petersen3Musculoskeletal Tumour Section, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen OE, Denmark; Corresponding author.Musculoskeletal Tumour Section, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen OE, DenmarkPaediatric Section, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, DenmarkMusculoskeletal Tumour Section, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen OE, DenmarkBackground and objectives: Endoprosthesis is considered a durable implant for treating metastatic bone disease of the proximal femur (MBDf). Objectives: • What is the revision risk after surgery for MBDf using endoprosthesis versus internal fixation?• When do patients with MBDf treated with endoprosthesis restore quality of life (QoL) and how long time does it take to rehabilitate functional outcome? Methods: A prospective, population-based, multicentre study of 110 patients. Patients were followed for a minimum of two years after surgery. No patients were lost to implant failure nor survival follow-up. Results: Forty-four patients were treated with internal fixation and 66 patients received endoprostheses. Two-year implant failure risk for internal fixation was 7% (95CI: 0–14%) versus 2% (95CI: 0–5%) for endoprostheses (p = 0.058).Eq-5D improved to the same level as one month prior to surgery six-weeks after surgery, and the score improved further six months after surgery (median score from 0.603 to 0.694, p = 0.007). MSTS score increased from 12 points after surgery to 23 points six-months after surgery (p<0.001). Conclusions: Endoprosthesis for treatment of MBDf results in low implant failure rate. Patients are satisfied with the functional outcome. QoL is restored six-weeks after surgery. Authors advocate for caution using internal fixation for MBDf due to findings of a possible high early postoperative revision risk. Keywords: Metastatic bone disease of the proximal femur, Pathological fracture, Quality of life, Tumour prosthesis, Mega-prothesis, Functional outcome, Surgeryhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212137419301460
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Michala Skovlund Sørensen
Peter Frederik Horstmann
Klaus Hindsø
Michael Mørk Petersen
spellingShingle Michala Skovlund Sørensen
Peter Frederik Horstmann
Klaus Hindsø
Michael Mørk Petersen
Use of endoprostheses for proximal femur metastases results in a rapid rehabilitation and low risk of implant failure. A prospective population-based study
Journal of Bone Oncology
author_facet Michala Skovlund Sørensen
Peter Frederik Horstmann
Klaus Hindsø
Michael Mørk Petersen
author_sort Michala Skovlund Sørensen
title Use of endoprostheses for proximal femur metastases results in a rapid rehabilitation and low risk of implant failure. A prospective population-based study
title_short Use of endoprostheses for proximal femur metastases results in a rapid rehabilitation and low risk of implant failure. A prospective population-based study
title_full Use of endoprostheses for proximal femur metastases results in a rapid rehabilitation and low risk of implant failure. A prospective population-based study
title_fullStr Use of endoprostheses for proximal femur metastases results in a rapid rehabilitation and low risk of implant failure. A prospective population-based study
title_full_unstemmed Use of endoprostheses for proximal femur metastases results in a rapid rehabilitation and low risk of implant failure. A prospective population-based study
title_sort use of endoprostheses for proximal femur metastases results in a rapid rehabilitation and low risk of implant failure. a prospective population-based study
publisher Elsevier
series Journal of Bone Oncology
issn 2212-1374
publishDate 2019-12-01
description Background and objectives: Endoprosthesis is considered a durable implant for treating metastatic bone disease of the proximal femur (MBDf). Objectives: • What is the revision risk after surgery for MBDf using endoprosthesis versus internal fixation?• When do patients with MBDf treated with endoprosthesis restore quality of life (QoL) and how long time does it take to rehabilitate functional outcome? Methods: A prospective, population-based, multicentre study of 110 patients. Patients were followed for a minimum of two years after surgery. No patients were lost to implant failure nor survival follow-up. Results: Forty-four patients were treated with internal fixation and 66 patients received endoprostheses. Two-year implant failure risk for internal fixation was 7% (95CI: 0–14%) versus 2% (95CI: 0–5%) for endoprostheses (p = 0.058).Eq-5D improved to the same level as one month prior to surgery six-weeks after surgery, and the score improved further six months after surgery (median score from 0.603 to 0.694, p = 0.007). MSTS score increased from 12 points after surgery to 23 points six-months after surgery (p<0.001). Conclusions: Endoprosthesis for treatment of MBDf results in low implant failure rate. Patients are satisfied with the functional outcome. QoL is restored six-weeks after surgery. Authors advocate for caution using internal fixation for MBDf due to findings of a possible high early postoperative revision risk. Keywords: Metastatic bone disease of the proximal femur, Pathological fracture, Quality of life, Tumour prosthesis, Mega-prothesis, Functional outcome, Surgery
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212137419301460
work_keys_str_mv AT michalaskovlundsørensen useofendoprosthesesforproximalfemurmetastasesresultsinarapidrehabilitationandlowriskofimplantfailureaprospectivepopulationbasedstudy
AT peterfrederikhorstmann useofendoprosthesesforproximalfemurmetastasesresultsinarapidrehabilitationandlowriskofimplantfailureaprospectivepopulationbasedstudy
AT klaushindsø useofendoprosthesesforproximalfemurmetastasesresultsinarapidrehabilitationandlowriskofimplantfailureaprospectivepopulationbasedstudy
AT michaelmørkpetersen useofendoprosthesesforproximalfemurmetastasesresultsinarapidrehabilitationandlowriskofimplantfailureaprospectivepopulationbasedstudy
_version_ 1725056098607562752