Search

Background: Massive bone allograft with or without a vascularized fibula is a potentially useful approach for femoral intercalary reconstruction after resection of bone sarcomas in children. However, inadequate data exist regarding whether it is preferable to use a massive bone allograft alone or a massive bone allograft combined with a vascularized free fibula for intercalary reconstructions of the femur after intercalary femur resections in children. Because the addition of a vascularized fibula adds to the time and complexity of the procedure, understanding more about whether it reduces complications and improves the function of patients who undergo these resections and reconstructions would be valuable for patients and treating physicians., Questions/purposes: In an analysis of children with bone sarcomas of the femur who underwent an intercalary resection and reconstruction with massive bone allograft with or without a vascularized free fibula, we asked: (1) What was the difference in the surgical time of these two different surgical techniques? (2) What are the complications and number of reoperations associated with each procedure? (3) What were the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores after these reconstructions? (4) What was the survival rate of these two different reconstructions?, Methods: Between 1994 and 2016, we treated 285 patients younger than 16 years with a diagnosis of osteosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma of the femur. In all, 179 underwent resection and reconstruction of the distal femur and 36 patients underwent resection and reconstruction of the proximal femur. Additionally, in 70 patients with diaphyseal tumors, we performed total femur reconstruction in four patients, amputation in five, and a rotationplasty in one. The remaining 60 patients with diaphyseal tumors underwent intercalary resection and reconstruction with massive bone allograft with or without vascularized free fibula. The decision to use a massive bone allograft with or without a vascularized free fibula was probably influenced by tumor size, with the indication to use the vascularized free fibula in longer reconstructions. Twenty-seven patients underwent a femur reconstruction with massive bone allograft and vascularized free fibula, and 33 patients received massive bone allograft alone. In the group with massive bone allograft and vascularized fibula, two patients were excluded because they did not have the minimum data for the analysis. In the group with massive bone allograft alone, 12 patients were excluded: one patient was lost to follow-up before 2 years, five patients died before 2 years of follow-up, and six patients did not have the minimum data for the analysis. We analyzed the remaining 46 children with sarcoma of the femur treated with intercalary resection and biological reconstruction. Twenty-five patients underwent femur reconstruction with a massive bone allograft and vascularized free fibula, and 21 patients had reconstruction with a massive bone allograft alone. In the group of children treated with massive bone allograft and vascularized free fibula, there were 17 boys and eight girls, with a mean ± SD age of 11 ± 3 years. The diagnosis was osteosarcoma in 14 patients and Ewing sarcoma in 11. The mean length of resection was 18 ± 5 cm. The mean follow-up was 117 ± 61 months. In the group of children treated with massive bone allograft alone, there were 13 boys and eight girls, with a mean ± SD age of 12 ± 2 years. The diagnosis was osteosarcoma in 17 patients and Ewing sarcoma in four. The mean length of resection was 15 ± 4 cm. The mean follow-up was 130 ± 56 months. Some patients finished clinical and radiological checks as the follow-up exceeded 10 years. In the group with massive bone allograft and vascularized free fibula, four patients had a follow-up of 10, 12, 13, and 18 years, respectively, while in the group with massive bone allograft alone, five patients had a follow-up of 10 years, one patient had a follow-up of 11 years, and another had 13 years of follow-up. In general, there were no important differences between the groups in terms of age (mean difference 0.88 [95% CI -0.6 to 2.3]; p = 0.26), gender (p = 0.66), diagnosis (p = 0.11), and follow up (mean difference 12.9 [95% CI-22.7 to 48.62]; p = 0.46). There was a difference between groups regarding the length of the resection, which was greater in patients treated with a massive bone allograft and vascularized free fibula (18 ± 5 cm) than in those treated with a massive bone allograft alone (15 ± 4 cm) (mean difference -3.09 [95% CI -5.7 to -0.4]; p = 0.02). Complications related to the procedure like infection, neurovascular compromise, and graft-related complication, such as fracture and nonunion of massive bone allograft or vascularized free fibula and implant breakage, were analyzed by chart review of these patients by an orthopaedic surgeon with experience in musculoskeletal oncology. Survival of the reconstructions that had no graft or implant replacement was the endpoint. The Kaplan-Meier test was performed for a survival analysis of the reconstruction. A p value less than 0.05 was considered significant., Results: The surgery was longer in patients treated with a massive bone allograft and vascularized free fibula than in patients treated with a massive bone allograft alone (10 ± 0.09 and 4 ± 0.77 hours, respectively; mean difference -6.8 [95% CI -7.1 to -6.4]; p = 0.001). Twelve of 25 patients treated with massive bone allograft and vascularized free fibula had one or more complication: allograft fracture (seven), nonunion (four), and infection (four). Twelve of 21 patients treated with massive bone allograft alone had the following complications: allograft fracture (five), nonunion (six), and infection (one). The mean functional results were 26 ± 4 in patients with a massive bone allograft and vascularized free fibula and 27 ± 2 in patients with a massive bone allograft alone (mean difference 0.75 [95% CI -10.6 to 2.57]; p = 0.39). With the numbers we had, we could not detect a difference in survival of the reconstruction between patients with a massive bone allograft and free vascularized fibula and those with a massive bone allograft alone (84% [95% CI 75% to 93%] and 87% [95% CI 80% to 94%], respectively; p = 0.89)., Conclusion: We found no difference in the survival of reconstructions between patients treated with a massive bone allograft and vascularized free fibula and patients who underwent reconstruction with a massive bone allograft alone. Based on this experience, our belief is that we should reconstruct these femoral intercalary defects with an allograft alone and use a vascularized fibula to salvage the allograft only if a fracture or nonunion occurs. This approach would have resulted in about half of the patients we treated not undergoing the more invasive, difficult, and risky vascularized procedure.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that neither he nor she, nor any member of his or her immediate family, has funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Intercalary reconstruction of tibial sarcomas with vascularized fibula autografts and massive bone allografts is reliable with predictable long-term results. However, inadequate data exist comparing free and pedicled vascularized fibula autografts in combination with a massive bone allograft in patients undergoing intercalary tibia reconstructions., Questions/purposes: Among patients undergoing large-segment intercalary allografting, we sought to compare supplemental free vascularized fibular autografts with supplemental pedicled vascularized fibular autografts, in terms of (1) oncologic results, (2) complications associated with surgery, (3) Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores, and (4) surgical time., Methods: Between 1994 and 2013, we treated 320 patients, younger than 40 years, with tibial sarcomas. Thirty-five patients (11%) underwent amputations. One hundred ninety-five patients (61%) were treated with intraarticular resection of the tibia, which constituted 104 tumor endoprostheses, 63 proximal tibia allograft prosthetic composites, 21 osteoarticular allografts, and seven arthrodeses with allografts. Ninety patients (28%) underwent joint-sparing intercalary reconstruction. Forty-one (13%) of these 90 patients were treated with allografts alone, two (1%) with vascularized fibula grafts, and 47 (15%) with intercalary allografts supplemented by autografts (free fibular autografts, 22 patients, 7%; pedicled fibular autografts, 25 patients, 8%). During the study period, we used free vascularized fibular autografts in association with massive bone allograft for a resection longer than 12 cm with a very small periarticular residual segment. The choice for using a pedicled fibula harvested in the ipsilateral leg initially was for patients having only diaphyseal resections and the indication was later extended to intraepiphyseal osteotomies with a small periarticular residual segment. The goals of this study are to present the long-term results in this group of patients and compare their results based on the type of vascularized fibula harvest. There were 33 male and 14 female patients with mean age of 14 ± 6 years. The median followup was 84 months (range, 7-231 months). No patients were lost to followup before 1 year. Four patients died and were not available for followup after 18 months. The mean tibia resection length was 15 ± 4 cm and mean length of the harvested vascularized fibula was 18 ± 4 cm., Results: Overall 5- and 10-year oncologic survival rates in this study were 87% ± 5% and 83% ± 6% respectively. With the numbers available, we observed no difference in survivorship free from death from disease between the study groups (85% ± 8% [95% CI, 174-232 months] of the free vascularized group versus 82% ± 8% [95% CI, 148-206 months] of the pedicled fibula graft group; p = 0.741). At last followup, 40 patients had no evidence of disease and seven had died of disease. Local recurrence was observed in two patients in the supplemental free vascularized fibula group and three patients in the supplemental pedicled vascularized fibula group, whereas metastases was observed in eight patients. With the numbers available, we observed no difference in the proportion of patients experiencing surgical complications between those treated with free vascularized fibula grafts and those treated with pedicled grafts (eight of 22 [36%] versus nine of 25 [36%] respectively; p = 0.605). With the numbers available, we observed no difference in mean MSTS scores between patients treated with free vascularized fibula grafts and those treated with pedicled grafts (24 ± 9 versus 25 ± 8; mean difference, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.54-4.6; p = 0.858). Mean surgical time was longer in the free vascularized fibula and massive bone allograft group at 9.4 ± 1.7 hours compared with that of the pedicled vascularized fibula and massive bone allograft group at 5.7 ± 1.3 hours (mean difference, 3.73 hours; 95% CI, 2.8-4.6 hours; p ≤ 0.001)., Conclusions: Intercalary reconstruction of tibia sarcomas with massive bone allografts supplemented with vascularized fibula grafts provide predictable results. Complications occur as expected in a biologic reconstruction, but are salvageable, preserving the original construct. The pedicled fibula can be an alternative to a free contralateral fibula for intraepiphyseal resections. Comparative technical ease, shorter surgical time, avoidance of additional microvascular anastomosis, and avoidance of surgery on the contralateral leg are notable advantages of pedicled vascularized fibula over free fibula grafts to supplement allografts when indicated in intercalary tibia resections., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Background: Reconstruction of the distal femur after resection for malignant bone tumors in skeletally immature children is challenging. The use of megaprostheses has become increasingly popular in this patient group since the introduction of custom-made, expandable devices that do not require surgery for lengthening, such as the Repiphysis(®) Limb Salvage System. Early reports on the device were positive but more recently, a high complication rate and associated bone loss have been reported., Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) what are the clinical outcomes using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system after 5-year minimum followup in patients treated with this prosthesis at one center; (2) what are the problems and complications associated with the lengthening procedures of this implant; and (3) what are the specific concerns associated with revision of this implant?, Methods: At our institute, between 2002 and 2007, the Repiphysis(®) expandable prosthesis was implanted in 15 children (mean age, 8 years; range, 6-11 years) after distal femoral resection for malignant bone tumors. During this time, the general indication for use of this implant was resection of the distal femur for localized malignant bone tumors in pediatric patients. Alternative techniques used for this indication were modular prosthetic reconstruction, massive (osteoarticular or intercalary) allograft reconstruction, or rotationplasty. Age and tumor extension were the main factors to decide on the surgical indication. Of the 15 patients who had this prosthesis implanted during reconstruction surgery, five died with the implant in situ or underwent amputation before 5 years followup and the remaining 10 were evaluated at a minimum of 5 years (mean, 104 months; range, 78-140 months). No patients were lost to followup. These 10 patients were long-term survivors and underwent the lengthening program. They were included in our study analysis. The first seven lengthening procedures were attempted in an outpatient setting; however, owing to pain and burning sensations experienced by the patients, the procedures failed to achieve the desired lengthening. Therefore, other procedures were performed with the patients under general anesthesia. We reviewed clinical data at index surgery for all 15 patients. We further analyzed the lengthening procedures, implant survival, radiographic and functional results, for the 10 long-term survivors. Functional results were assessed according to the MSTS scoring system. Complications were classified according to the International Society of Limb Salvage (ISOLS) classification system., Results: Nine of the 10 survivors underwent revision of the implant for mechanical failure. They had a mean MSTS score of 64% (range, 47%-87%) before revision surgery. At final followup the 10 long-term surviving patients had an average MSTS score of 81% (range, 53%-97%). In total, we obtained an average lengthening of 39 mm per patient (range, 17-67 mm). Exact expansion of the implant was unpredictable and difficult to control. Nine of 10 of the long-term surviving patients underwent revision surgery of the prosthesis-eight for implant breakage and one for stem loosening. At revision surgery, six patients had another type of expandable prosthesis implanted and three had an adult-type megaprosthesis implanted. In five cases, segmental bone grafts were used during revision surgery to compensate for loss of bone stock., Conclusions: We could not comfortably expand the Repiphysis(®) prosthesis in an outpatient setting because of pain experienced by the patients during the lengthening procedures. Furthermore, use of the prosthesis was associated with frequent failures related to implant breakage and stem loosening. Revisions of these procedures were complex and difficult. We no longer use this prosthesis and caution others against the use of this particular prosthesis design., Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Unlabelled: The grade of chondrosarcoma relates to the likelihood of local recurrence and metastases. Many Grade I chondrosarcomas behave benignly if aggressively, and the question arises regarding whether wide resection is essential to control the disease. We therefore asked whether intralesional surgery also could be extended to Grade I chondrosarcomas without an increase in recurrence. We retrospectively reviewed 31 patients with Grade I chondrosarcomas of the limbs. The minimum followup was 66 months (mean, 157 months; range, 66-296 months). None of the 16 patients treated by resection had recurrences during the followup and two of the 15 patients with intralesional excision had recurrences, both of which resolved with resection of the site involved by the recurrence without progression of the disease. The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores averaged 72% in patients treated with wide resection compared with 89% in the 15 patients treated by intralesional surgery. The two recurrences occurred in patients whose radiographs showed thinning of the cortex combined with bone enlargement and marked endosteal scalloping; histologic examination in these two patients also showed a correlation between radiographic aggressiveness and the presence of myxoid areas and hypercellularity., Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Unlabelled: We consider an allograft-prosthesis composite in the proximal tibia one of the better reconstructive options in this site because it combines the mechanical stability of a prosthesis with the biologic reconstruction of the extensor mechanism. We retrospectively reviewed 62 patients who had proximal tibia reconstructions with allograft-prosthesis composites to ascertain the complications and functional outcomes. By combining an allograft with a prosthesis, placing cement in the graft, and press-fitting the prosthesis in the tibial diaphysis, we obtained satisfactory Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scores in 90.4% of patients, with a 5-year survival rate (73.4%) comparable to that of reconstruction with a modular prosthesis. However, we observed high infection rates (24.2%) and rotation of the medial gastrocnemius seemed not to reduce this complication. For this reason, we do not recommend using this reconstructive technique in patients who will receive postoperative chemotherapy or in patients in whom a previous reconstructive method failed. We believe the ideal candidate is the young patient with a benign aggressive or malignant low-grade tumor who has not undergone previous surgery., Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.