Search

Chondrosarcoma is the second most common surgically treated primary bone sarcoma. Despite a large number of scientific papers in the literature, there is still significant controversy about diagnostics, treatment of the primary tumour, subtypes, and complications. Therefore, consensus on its day-to-day treatment decisions is needed. In January 2024, the Birmingham Orthopaedic Oncology Meeting (BOOM) attempted to gain global consensus from 300 delegates from over 50 countries. The meeting focused on these critical areas and aimed to generate consensus statements based on evidence amalgamation and expert opinion from diverse geographical regions. In parallel, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in oncological reconstructions poses unique challenges due to factors such as adjuvant treatments, large exposures, and the complexity of surgery. The meeting debated two-stage revisions, antibiotic prophylaxis, managing acute PJI in patients undergoing chemotherapy, and defining the best strategies for wound management and allograft reconstruction. The objectives of the meeting extended beyond resolving immediate controversies. It sought to foster global collaboration among specialists attending the meeting, and to encourage future research projects to address unsolved dilemmas. By highlighting areas of disagreement and promoting collaborative research endeavours, this initiative aims to enhance treatment standards and potentially improve outcomes for patients globally. This paper sets out some of the controversies and questions that were debated in the meeting., Competing Interests: A. Puri is a member of the editorial board of The Bone & Joint Journal. P. Ruggieri reports consulting fees from Exactech and Stryker, unrelated to this study. M. T. Houdek reports consulting fees from Link Orthopedics, unrelated to this study. E. Botello reports consulting fees, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Zimmer Biomet, all of which are unrelated to this study. G. V. Morris reports consulting fees, payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Implantcast, all of which are unrelated to this study., (© 2024 Jeys et al.)

Background: Survival in patients who have Ewing sarcoma is correlated with postchemotherapy response (tumor necrosis). This treatment response has been categorized as the response rate, similar to what has been used in osteosarcoma. There is controversy regarding whether this is appropriate or whether it should be a dichotomy of complete versus incomplete response, given how important a complete response is for in overall survival of patients with Ewing sarcoma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact that the amount of chemotherapy-induced necrosis has on (1) overall survival, (2) local recurrence-free survival, (3) metastasis-free survival, and (4) event-free survival in patients with Ewing sarcoma., Methods: In total, 427 patients who had Ewing sarcoma or tumors in the Ewing sarcoma family and received treatment with preoperative chemotherapy and surgery at 10 international institutions were included. Multivariate Cox proportional-hazards analyses were used to assess the associations between tumor necrosis and all four outcomes while controlling for clinical factors identified in bivariate analysis, including age, tumor volume, location, surgical margins, metastatic disease at presentation, and preoperative radiotherapy., Results: Patients who had a complete (100%) tumor response to chemotherapy had increased overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.48; p < .01), recurrence-free survival (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.82; p = .01), metastasis-free survival (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.46; p ≤ .01), and event-free survival (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.16-0.41; p ≤ .01) compared with patients who had a partial (0%-99%) response., Conclusions: Complete tumor necrosis should be the index parameter to grade response to treatment as satisfactory in patients with Ewing sarcoma. Any viable tumor in these patients after neoadjuvant treatment should be of oncologic concern. These findings can affect the design of new clinical trials and the risk-stratified application of conventional or novel treatments., (© 2022 American Cancer Society.)

Aims: to review a group of patients with primary bone tumors treated with intraoperative navigation and analyze: (1) The technical problems; (2) Indications for Computer Assisted Surgery (CAS); (3) Oncological results; (4) Non oncological complications., Materials and Methods: All patients from a single institution who had preoperative virtual planned for an oncological primary bone resection assisted with navigation between May 2010 and July 2017 were enrolled in the study (203 patients). The use of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) was classified according to the oncologic procedure performed: (1) intralesional resections, (2) en-block resections, and (3) en-block resections + navigated allograft reconstructions., Results: Four patients (4/203, 2%) of the series presented technical problems which came from 2 software and 2 hardware crashes. Eight (4%) procedures were intralesional resections and no local recurrences or complications were reported in this group. Ninety-eight surgeries (49%) were pure en block resection. The pelvis and sacrum were the main location in this group (57%). All bone margins were defined negative but 2 patients presented a positive resection in the soft tissues. Infection was the most prevalent complication (16/23). Ninety-three procedures were done for en block resections + allograft reconstruction (all extremities tumor). All margins were free of tumor and non oncological rate for this group was 28%., Conclusion: The main indications for CAS were malignant bone tumors resection. The technical failures precluded navigation use in 2%. CAS for pure en-block resections were mainly indicated in pelvic and sacrum tumors while en-block resection + allograft reconstruction assisted with navigation were only indicated in extremities tumors., Level of Evidence: IV., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: Massive bone allografts have been used for limb salvage in patients undergoing bone tumor resections as an alternative to endoprostheses. Although several studies on massive allograft reconstructions for bone tumors reported that most complications occur in the first 3 years after surgery, there are no long-term reports on complications to substantiate this contention. We believe such information is important so that surgeons and patients can make more informed decisions when choosing a reconstructive method after tumor resection., Questions/purposes: (1) What is the survival of allografts free from removal, amputation, or joint replacement in patients treated for bone tumors in the lower limb with a minimum of 10 years of followup? (2) What complications occur after 10 or more years of followup? (3) Are there factors associated with allograft survival, such as age, sex, the affected bone, reconstruction type (intercalary or osteoarticular allograft), tumor type (malignant or benign), failure type, and chemotherapy use?, Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of 398 patients treated in one center with benign or malignant bone tumors in the femur or tibia between 1986 and 2007. During the period in question, our general indications for using allografts (354 patients) included patients with benign or low-grade sarcomas and patients with high-grade sarcomas with clinical and imaging response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Other approaches such as endoprostheses (44 patients) were indicated if the patient received radiotherapy, in patients with high-grade sarcomas without clinical and imaging response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, or with neurovascular tumor involvement. We excluded from the analysis 53 patients treated with allograft-prosthetic composites, 46 with hemicondylar osteoarticular allografts, and 57 with intercalary hemicylindrical allografts. The study was thus performed in 198 patients treated with segmental massive allografts in the long bones of the lower extremity (132 femurs and 66 tibias) after resection of a primary bone tumor, including 120 patients treated with osteoarticular and 78 with segmental intercalary allografts. A total of 32 (16%) of the 198 patients died before 10 years, and graft status was known in all of those patients; these patients were included (mean followup, 192 months; range, 1-370 months). All remaining 166 patients who were not known to have died before 10 years were accounted for at least 10 years after the allograft procedure (mean, 222 months; range, 120-370 months). No patient was lost to followup. The mean age was 22 years (range, 2-55 years); 105 patients were male (53%) and 93 were female. The predominant diagnoses were osteosarcoma (n = 125, 63%), giant cell tumor of bone (n = 27, 14%), and Ewing's sarcoma (n = 19, 10%). In all, 146 patients (74%) underwent chemotherapy. Selected variables were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify risk factors of allograft removal, joint replacement, or amputation. We performed competitive risk analysis with allograft removal, joint replacement, or amputation as the endpoint at 5, 10, and 20 years. Patient function was evaluated using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS)-93 scoring system., Results: The risk of allograft removal, joint replacement, or amputation was 36% at 5 years (95% CI, 30-43), 40% at 10 years (95% CI, 33-47), and 44% at 20 years (95% CI, 37-51). Fractures occurred in 15% (29 patients), infection in 14% (27 patients), nonunion in 12% (23 patients) and tumor recurrence in 7% (13 patients). Thirty-two patients died of disease before 10 years; nine of these patients had a second surgery before death, eight had an amputation, and one underwent graft removal. Of the 166 patients who were still alive 10 years after the allograft procedure, 36 underwent allograft removal, six patients underwent joint replacement, and four had an amputation; however, after 10 years, six more allografts were removed (four due to fractures, one due to infection, and one due to instability), and another patient was amputated due to a second malignancy. After controlling for potentially confounding variables including death, we found that the risk of allograft removal, joint replacement, or amputation in osteoarticular tibial grafts (58% [95% CI, 43-73] at 5, 10, and 20 years) was higher than that of osteoarticular femur allografts (29% [95% CI, 18-39] at 5 years, 30% [95% CI, 19-40] at 10 years, 37% [95% CI, 25-48] at 20 years; p = 0.010) and tibia intercalary allografts (26% [95% CI, 7-45] at 5, 10 and 20 years; p = 0.020). Fractures occurred more frequently in the femur (18% [95% CI, 11-25]) than in the tibia (5% [95% CI, 0-10]; p < 0.010), and infections occurred more frequently in the tibia (24% [95% CI, 14-35]) than in the femur (4% [95% CI, 0-8]; p < 0.001). With the number of patients we had, we found no difference in the proportion of local recurrence in the tibia (12% [95% CI, 4-20]) compared with the femur (5% [95% CI, 1-9]; p < 0.053)., Conclusions: Infections were the most common complications associated with allograft removal in the first 2 to 3 years after reconstruction and were more frequently associated with tibial allograft removal. Fractures were more commonly associated with graft removal with longer term followup and were more frequently associated with femoral allograft removal. Although we cannot directly compare our results with other types of reconstructions, we believe that allografts still have a role in the reconstruction of patients with a benign or low-grade bone tumor. Future studies in femoral allograft with longer followup should be performed to analyze factors that may explain why some grafts fail, such as the percent of the length of the bone resected, type and number of plates and screws used and type of fixation (rods versus plates). There was a higher incidence of graft removal in patients with proximal tibia osteoarticular allografts, which has led us to use this type of reconstruction only in pediatric patients over the last 15 years., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Introduction: Endoprostheses in the treatment of extremity sarcomas are associated with late complications including periprosthetic infection. This study analysed the incidence of infection in patients undergoing endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) with a silver-coated prosthesis., Materials and Methods: The study comprised a retrospective single centre study of 394 consecutive patients treated with resection and EPR for primary extremity bone tumours., Results: 89 patients at risk for infection were treated with a silver-coated (Agluna®) EPR (22.6%), compared to 305 patients treated with a non-silver EPR (77.4%). The incidence of periprosthetic infection, requiring revision as the primary endpoint was 34/394 (8.6%); 11 patients (12.4%) in the silver group and 23 patients (7.5%) in the non-silver group (p = 0.154). Overall implant survival was 90.9% and 95.3% at 1-year and 86.8% and 91.8% at 5-years in the silver-coated and non-silver coated group, respectively (p = 0.193). Infection was treated in the silver group by washout of the prosthesis in 2/11, debridement and implant retention (DAIR) in 1/11 and single-stage revision in 1/11, and in the non-silver group by washout in 1/23 or DAIR in 2/23. Two-stage revision was successful in 2/11in the silver group, and in 11/23 in the non-silver group. Amputation was required in 4/11 in the silver group and 9/23 in the non-silver group. One patient in the silver group died due to disease with an infected EPR., Conclusions: Silver-coated prostheses in high risk patients show similar infection free survival as non-silver coated prosthesis in standard sites in primary bone tumours of the extremities., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Malignant bone tumors of the pelvis in children are rare and knowledge of their behavior is limited., Methods: A total of 113 skeletally immature patients under 16 years of age, comprising 58 females and 55 males were treated between 1983 and 2014. Tumors comprised Ewing's sarcoma (ES) in 88 (77.9%) or osteosarcoma (OS) in 25 (22.1%). Metastases at diagnosis were present in 36 (31.9%). The mean follow-up was 5.2 years (2 to 16)., Results: For patients with ES, the overall survival was 37.1% at 5-years and 33.5% at 10-years and 31.7% at 5- and 10-years in patients with OS. Local recurrence occurred in 24 patients with ES (27.3%) and 7 patients with OS (43.7%). Chemotherapy response was a predictor of local recurrence in ES with the lowest incidence seen in those with a good response to chemotherapy treated with a combination of radiotherapy and surgery. In patients with OS, both surgical margin and chemotherapy response influenced local control., Conclusions: Attaining a wide surgical margin should be the aim of treatment for all children with primary bone tumors of the pelvis. In ES, chemotherapy response has a greater influence on disease free and overall survival. Patients who demonstrate a poor response to chemotherapy should be considered for subsequent radiotherapy. Effort should be directed toward identifying nonhistologic methods of assessing chemotherapy response., Level of Evidence: Level IV-retrospective case study.

Background: Preservation of limb function after resection of malignant bone tumors in skeletally immature children is challenging. Resection of bone sarcomas and reconstruction with an allograft in patients younger than 10 years old is one reconstructive alternative. However, long-term studies analyzing late complications and limb length discrepancy at skeletal maturity are scarce; this information would be important, because growth potential is altered in these patients owing to the loss of one physis during tumor resection., Questions/purposes: At a minimum followup of 10 years after reconstructions in children younger than 10 years of age at the time of reconstruction, we asked what is (1) the limb length discrepancy at skeletal maturity and how was it managed; (2) the risk of amputation; (3) the risk of allograft removal; and (4) the risk of second surgery resulting from complications?, Methods: Between 1994 and 2006, we performed 22 bone allografts after bone sarcoma resections in children younger than 10 years of age. Of those, none were lost to followup before the minimum followup of 10 years was reached, and an additional six had died of disease (of whom three died since our last report on this group of patients), leaving 16 patients whom we studied here. Followup on these patients was at a mean of 13.5 years (range, 10-22 years). During the period in question, no other treatments (such as extendible prostheses, amputations, etc) were used. The mean age at the time of the original surgery was 7 years (range, 2-10 years), and the mean age of the 16 alive patients at last followup was 20 years (range, 15-28 years). This series included 10 boys and six girls with 14 osteosarcomas and two Ewing sarcomas. Ten reconstructions were performed with an intercalary allograft and six with an osteoarticular allograft. The growth plate was uninvolved in three patients, whereas in the remaining 13, the growth plate was included in the resection (seven intercalary and six osteoarticular allografts). Limb length discrepancy at skeletal maturity was measured with full-length standing radiographs, and data were collected by retrospective study of a longitudinally maintained institutional database. The risk of amputation, allograft removal, and secondary surgery resulting from a complication was calculated by a competing-risk analysis method., Results: We observed no limb length discrepancy at skeletal maturity in the three patients with intercalary resections in whom we preserved the physes on both sides of the joint (two femurs and one tibia); however, one patient developed malalignment that was treated with corrective osteotomy of the tibia. The remaining 13 patients developed limb length discrepancy as a result of loss of one physis. Seven patients (four femurs, two tibias, and one humerus) developed shortening of ≤ 3 cm (mean, 2.4 cm; range, 1-3 cm) and no lengthening was performed. Six patients developed > 3 cm of limb discrepancy at skeletal maturity (all distal femoral reconstructions). In four patients this was treated with femoral lengthening, whereas two declined this procedure (each with 6 cm of shortening). In the four patients who had a lengthening procedure, one patient had a final discrepancy of 4 cm, whereas the other three had equal limb lengths at followup. The risk of amputation was 4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-15) and none occurred since our previous report. The risk of allograft removal was 15% (95% CI, 1-29) and none occurred since our previous report on this group of patients. The risk of other operations resulting from a complication was 38% (95% CI, 19-57). Eleven patients underwent a second operation resulting from a complication (three local recurrences, five fractures, one infection, one nonunion, and one tibial deformity), of which three were performed since our last report on this group of patients., Conclusions: Limb length inequalities and subsequent procedures to correct them were common in this small series of very young patients as were complications resulting in operative procedures, but overall most allografts remained in place at long-term followup. In skeletally immature children, bone allograft is one alternative among several that are available (such as rotationplasty and endoprosthesis), and future studies with long followup may be able to compare the available options with one another., Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.

Background: The treatment of locally aggressive bone tumors is a balance between achieving local tumor control and surgical morbidity. Wide resection decreases the likelihood of local recurrence, although wide resection may result in more complications than would happen after curettage. Navigation-assisted surgery may allow more precise resection, perhaps making it possible to expand the procedure's indications and decrease the likelihood of recurrence; however, to our knowledge, comparative studies have not been performed., Questions/purposes: The purpose of this study was to compare curettage plus phenol as a local adjuvant with navigation-guided en bloc resection in terms of (1) local recurrence; (2) nononcologic complications; and (3) function as measured by revised Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scores., Methods: Patients with a metaphyseal and/or epiphyseal locally aggressive primary bone tumor treated by curettage and adjuvant therapy or en bloc resection assisted by navigation between 2010 and 2014 were considered for this retrospective study. Patients with a histologic diagnosis of a primary aggressive benign bone tumor or low-grade chondrosarcoma were included. During this time period, we treated 45 patients with curettage of whom 43 (95%) were available for followup at a minimum of 24 months (mean, 37 months; range, 24-61 months), and we treated 26 patients with navigation-guided en bloc resection, of whom all (100%) were available for study. During this period, we generally performed curettage with phenol when the lesion was in contact with subchondral bone. We treated tumors that were at least 5 mm from the subchondral bone, such that en bloc resection was considered possible with computer-assisted block resection. There were no differences in terms of age, gender, tumor type, or tumor location between the groups. Outcomes, including allograft healing, nonunion, tumor recurrence, fracture, hardware failure, infection, and revised MSTS score, were recorded. Bone consolidation was defined as complete periosteal and endosteal bridging visible between the allograft-host junctions in at least two different radiographic views and the absence of pain and instability in the union site. All study data were obtained from our longitudinally maintained oncology database., Results: In the curettage group, two patients developed a local recurrence, and no local recurrences were recorded in patients treated with en bloc resection. All patients who underwent navigation-guided resection achieved tumor-free margins. Intraoperative navigation was performed successfully in all patients and there were no failures in registration. Postoperative complications did not differ between the groups: in patients undergoing curettage, 7% (three of 43) and in patients undergoing navigation, 4% (one of 26) had a complication. There was no difference in functional scores: mean MSTS score for patients undergoing curettage was 28 points (range, 27-30 points) and for patients undergoing navigation, 29 (range, 27-30 points; p = 0.10)., Conclusions: In this small comparative series, navigation-assisted resection techniques allowed conservative en bloc resection of locally aggressive primary bone tumors with no local recurrence. Nevertheless, with the numbers available, we saw no difference between the groups in terms of local recurrence risk, complications, or function. Until or unless studies demonstrate an advantage to navigation-guided en bloc resection, we cannot recommend wide use of this novel technique because it adds surgical time and expense., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Background: Studies focusing on the oncological outcome after treatment of conventional primary central chondrosarcoma of pelvic bone are lacking. We conducted this retrospective study at 5 referral centers to gain insight in the outcome of treatment for this tumor type and to identify risk factors for impaired oncological outcome., Methods: One hundred and sixty-two consecutive patients (118 male patients [73%]) who underwent resection of a conventional primary central chondrosarcoma of pelvic bone from 1985 to 2013 were evaluated. The median age was 51 years (range, 15 to 78 years). The median follow-up was 12.6 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.4 to 16.9 years). There were 30 grade-I lesions (19%), 93 grade-II lesions (57%), and 39 grade-III lesions (24%)., Results: Sixty-two patients (38%) experienced local recurrence: 9 grade-I lesions (30%), 31 grade-II lesions (33%), and 22 grade-III lesions (56%). Forty-eight patients (30%) developed metastases. The risk of disease-related death was 3% for grade-I tumors (1 of 30; this patient had a grade-II recurrence and died of metastases), 33% (31 of 93) for grade-II tumors, and 54% (21 of 39) for grade-III tumors. Identified risk factors for impaired disease-specific survival were tumor grade (grade II: hazard ratio [HR], 20.18; p = 0.003; and grade III: HR, 58.94; p < 0.001), resection margins (marginal: HR, 3.21; p = 0.001; and intralesional: HR, 3.56; p < 0.001), and maximal tumor size (HR, 1.08 per cm; p = 0.026). Deep infection (19% [n = 31]) was the predominant complication., Conclusions: This study offers a standard for survival rates for conventional primary central chondrosarcoma of the pelvis. The survival for grade-I tumors was excellent. Wide resection margins were associated with a significant survival advantage for higher-grade tumors. Because of the inability to reliably distinguish low-grade and high-grade tumors preoperatively, we conclude that any central pelvic chondrosarcoma should be treated with aggressive primary resection with the aim of obtaining wide resection margins. There may be aggressive biologic features in some tumors for which a surgical procedure alone may not be adequate to improve outcomes., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: The proximal tibia is one of the most challenging anatomic sites for extremity reconstructions after bone tumor resection. Because bone tumors are rare and large case series of reconstructions of the proximal tibia are lacking, we undertook this study to compare two major reconstructive approaches at two large sarcoma centers., Questions/purposes: The purpose of this study was to compare groups of patients treated with endoprosthetic replacement or osteoarticular allograft reconstruction for proximal tibia bone tumors in terms of (1) limb salvage reconstruction failures and risk of amputation of the limb; (2) causes of failure; and (3) functional results., Methods: Between 1990 and 2012, two oncologic centers treated 385 patients with proximal tibial resections and reconstruction. During that time, the general indications for those types of reconstruction were proximal tibia malignant tumors or bone destruction with articular surface damage or collapse. Patients who matched the inclusion criteria (age between 15 and 60 years old, diagnosis of a primary bone tumor of the proximal tibia treated with limb salvage surgery and reconstructed with endoprosthetic replacement or osteoarticular allograft) were included for analysis (n = 149). In those groups (endoprosthetic or allograft), of the patients not known to have reached an endpoint (death, reconstructive failure, or limb loss) before 2 years, 85% (88 of 104) and 100% (45 of 45) were available for followup at a minimum of 2 years. A total of 88 patients were included in the endoprosthetic group and 45 patients in the osteoarticular allograft group. Followup was at a mean of 9.5 (SD 6.72) years (range, 2-24 years) for patients with endoprosthetic reconstructions, and 7.4 (SD 5.94) years for patients treated with allografts (range, 2-21 years). The following variables were compared: limb salvage reconstruction failure rates, risk of limb amputation, type of failures according to the Henderson et al. classification, and functional results assessed by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society system., Results: With the numbers available, after competitive risk analysis, the probability of failure for endoprosthetic replacement of the proximal tibia was 18% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.75-27.46) at 5 years and 44% (95% CI, 31.67-55.62) at 10 years and for osteoarticular allograft reconstruction was 27% (95% CI, 14.73-40.16) at 5 years and 32% (95% CI, 18.65-46.18) at 10 years. There were no differences in terms of risk of failures at 5 years (p = 0.26) or 10 years (p = 0.20) between the two groups. Fifty-one of 88 patients (58%) with proximal tibia endoprostheses developed a reconstruction failure with mechanical causes being the most prevalent (32 of 51 patients [63%]). A total of 19 of 45 osteoarticular allograft reconstructions failed (42%) and nine of 19 (47%) of them were caused by early infection. Ten-year risk of amputation after failure for endoprosthetic reconstruction was 10% (95% CI, 5.13-18.12) and 11% (95% CI, 4.01-22.28) for osteoarticular allograft with no difference between the groups (p = 0.91). With the numbers available, there were no differences between the groups in terms of the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score (26.58, SD 2.99, range, 19-30 versus 27.52, SD 1.91, range, 22-30; p = 0.13; 95% CI, -2,3 to 0.32). Mean extension lag was more severe in the endoprosthetic group than the osteoarticular allograft group: 13.56° (SD 18.73; range, 0°-80°) versus 2.41° (SD 5.76; range, 0°-30°; p < 0.001; 95% CI, 5.8-16.4)., Conclusions: Reconstruction of the proximal tibia with either endoprosthetic replacement or osteoarticular allograft appears to offer similar reconstruction failures rates. The primary cause of failure for allograft was infection and for endoprosthesis was mechanical complications. We believe that the treating surgeon should have both options available for treatment of patients with malignant or aggressive tumors of the proximal tibia. (S)he might consider an allograft in a younger patient to achieve better extensor mechanism function, whereas in an older patient or one with a poorer prognosis where return to function and ambulation quickly is desired, an endoprosthesis may be advantageous., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Purpose: The aim of the study was to report overall survival, local recurrence and development of metastasis in a group of patients with femur chondrosarcoma that presented with or without a pathological fracture., Methods: A retrospective review was performed, and 182 patients (39 pathological fractures) that had been treated by oncologic surgery for femoral chondrosarcoma were included. The mean age of the series was 50 years (range, eight to 90) and 114 patients were male (63%). Mean follow-up was 113 months (range, three to 216). Cancer-specific overall survival, development of metastasis and local recurrence were analysed, grouping patients by grade (grade I / grade 2-3 / dedifferentiated)., Results: Disease-specific survival in the entire group of chondrosarcoma of the femur was 69% (CI95% 63-76) at 5 years. Five-year disease-specific survival in the fracture group was 49% lower than in the control group 75% (p = 0.0001). Survival of patients with grade 1 chondrosarcoma with fracture was significantly less than those without fracture (p = 0.02) but there was no difference in those with grade 2-3 (p = 0.49) and dedifferentiated tumours (p = 0.09). The local recurrence rate of the entire series was 27%. Only dedifferentiated chondrosarcomas with an associated pathological fracture had a significantly higher rate of local recurrence. There was no relationship between development of metastases and fracture., Conclusion: A pathological fracture of the femur has a negative prognostic influence in grade 1 chondrosarcoma and increases the risk of local recurrence in dedifferentiated femur chondrosarcomas.

Background: Bone tumor resections for limb salvage have become standard treatment. Recently, computer-assisted navigation has been introduced to improve the accuracy of joint arthroplasty and possible tumor resection surgery; however, like with any new technology, its benefits and limitations need to be characterized for surgeons to make informed decisions about whether to use it., Questions/purposes: We wanted to (1) assess the technical problems associated with computer-assisted navigation; (2) assess the accuracy of the registration technique; (3) define the time required to perform a navigated resection in orthopedic oncology; and (4) the frequency of complications such as local recurrence, infection, nonunion, fracture, and articular collapse after tumor resection and bone reconstruction with allografts using intraoperative navigation assistance., Methods: We analyzed 69 consecutive patients with bone tumors of the extremities that were reconstructed with massive bone allografts using intraoperative navigation assistance with a minimum followup of 12 months (mean, 29 months; range, 12-43 months). All patients had their tumors reconstructed in three-dimensional format in a virtual platform and planning was performed to determine the osteotomy position according to oncology margins in a CT-MRI image fusion. Tumor resections and allograft reconstructions were performed using a computer navigation system according to the previously planned cuts. We analyzed intraoperative data such as technical problems related to the navigation procedure, registration technique error, length of time for the navigation procedure, and postoperative complications such as local recurrence, infection, nonunion, fracture, and articular collapse., Results: In three patients (4%), the navigation was not carried out as a result of technical problems. Of the 66 cases in which navigation was performed, the mean registration error was 0.65 mm (range, 0.3-1.2 mm). The mean required time for navigation procedures, including bone resection and allograft reconstruction during surgery, was 35 minutes (range, 18-65 minutes). Complications that required a second surgical procedure were recorded for nine patients including one local recurrence, one infection, two fractures, one articular collapse, and four nonunions. In two of these nine patients, the allograft needed to be removed. At latest followup, three patients died of their original disease., Conclusions: The navigation procedure could not be performed for technical reasons in 4% of the series. The mean registration error was 0.65 mm in this series and the navigation procedure itself adds a mean of 35 minutes during surgery. The complications rate for this series was 14%. We found a nonunion rate of 6% in allograft reconstructions when we used a navigation system for the cuts., Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.