Search

Abstract Background Patients with primary Bone Sarcoma and Giant Cell Tumors in the lower extremities often require major surgery involving tumor prostheses. The postoperative course for this patient group can be complex and influenced by various factors and challenges that demand careful nursing care. This study aims to identify challenges related to the nursing care of individuals with primary bone tumors following surgery for tumor prostheses in the lower extremities. Methods A retrospective cohort study of 15 patients treated at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, between November 5. 2016, and April 1. 2020 was conducted by medical record review, focusing on challenges related to postoperative nursing care. All patients with the surgery code “Bone Excision” were identified within the surgery booking system and screened for eligibility. Results Patients experienced postoperative challenges such as severe pain, prolonged time to mobilization (mean: 4 days), and defecation (mean: 5 days). The mean length of stay at the Rigshospitalet was 13 days. Furthermore, eleven patients (73%) reported disrupted sleep and nausea. Conclusion Patients undergoing tumor prosthesis surgery in the lower extremities face considerable postoperative challenges that contribute to a prolonged hospital stay. These challenges, including severe pain, delayed mobilization, and gastrointestinal issues, significantly impact recovery. The findings highlight the urgent need for targeted nursing interventions to address these issues effectively. Enhanced pain management protocols, early mobilization strategies, and comprehensive postoperative care plans are essential to improve patient outcomes and reduce the length of hospital stays. Addressing these challenges through dedicated nursing care is crucial for optimizing the recovery process for patients receiving lower extremity tumor prostheses.

Abstract Background The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score (MSTS) is widely used to evaluate functioning following surgery for bone and soft-tissue sarcoma. However, concerns have been raised about its content validity due to the lack of patient involvement during item development. Additionally, literature reports inconsistent results regarding data quality and structural validity. This study aimed to evaluate content, structural and construct validity of the Danish version of the MSTS for lower extremity (MSTS-LE). Methods The study included patients from three complete cohorts (n = 87) with bone sarcoma or giant cell tumour of bone who underwent bone resection and reconstruction surgery in hip and knee. Content validity was evaluated by linking MSTS items to frameworks of functioning, core outcome sets and semi-structured interviews. Data quality, internal consistency and factor analysis were used to assess the underlying structure of the MSTS. Construct validity was based on predefined hypotheses of correlation between the MSTS and concurrent measurements. Results Content validity analysis revealed concerns regarding the MSTS. The MSTS did not sufficiently cover patient-important functions, the item Emotional acceptance could not be linked to the framework of functioning, the items Pain and Emotional acceptance pertained to domains beyond functioning and items’ response options did not match items. A two-factor solution emerged, with the items Pain and Emotional acceptance loading highly on a second factor distinct from functioning. Internal consistency and construct validity showed values below accepted levels. Conclusion The Danish MSTS-LE demonstrated inadequate content validity, internal consistency, and construct validity. In addition, our analyses did not support unidimensionality of the MSTS. Consequently, the MSTS-LE is not a simple reflection of the construct of functioning and the interpretation of a sum score is problematic. Clinicians and researcher should exercise caution when relying solely on MSTS scores for assessing lower extremity function. Alternative outcome measurements of functioning should be considered for the evaluation of postoperative function in this patient group.

AimsPelvic discontinuity is a rare but increasingly common complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). This single-centre study evaluated the performance of custom-made triflange acetabular components in acetabular reconstruction with pelvic discontinuity by determining: 1) revision and overall implant survival rates; 2) discontinuity healing rate; and 3) Harris Hip Score (HHS).MethodsRetrospectively collected data of 38 patients (39 hips) with pelvic discontinuity treated with revision THA using a custom-made triflange acetabular component were analyzed. Minimum follow-up was two years (mean 5.1 years (2 to 11)).ResultsThere were eight subsequent surgical interventions. Two failures (5%) of the triflange acetabular components were both revised because of deep infection. There were seven (18%) patients with dislocation, and five (13%) of these were treated with a constraint liner. One patient had a debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) procedure. In 34 (92%) hips the custom-made triflange component was considered stable, with a healed pelvic discontinuity with no aseptic loosening at midterm follow-up. Mean HHS was 80.5 (48 to 96).ConclusionThe performance of the custom triflange implant in this study is encouraging, with high rates of discontinuity healing and osteointegration of the acetabular implant with no aseptic loosening at midterm follow-up. However, complications are not uncommon, particularly instability which we successfully addressed with constrained liners.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):867–876.

Abstract Background Inferior scapular notching is a complication unique to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The most efficient technique to avoid inferior scapular notching has been reported to be lateralization of the glenoid offset. This study aims to compare radiological and functional outcomes of the DELTA Xtend® Reverse Shoulder System Lateralized Glenosphere Line Extension (intervention group) with the Standard DELTA Xtend® Reverse Shoulder System (control group). We hypothesize that the lateralization improves the patient outcome by decreasing the risk of inferior scapular notching without increasing the risk of migration and loosening of glenoid component. Methods In this randomized controlled trial, all Danish citizens with rotator cuff arthropathy or degeneration of the glenohumeral joint with severe posterior wear and allocated for a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty at the department of orthopaedic surgery at Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, will be considered for participation. The exclusion criteria are as follows: below 50 years of age, cognitive or linguistic impairment, insufficient glenoid bone stock, previous fracture in the upper extremity and autoimmune-mediated inflammatory arthritis. There will be included a total of 122 patients of which 56 will participate in the radiostereometric analysis. This number of patients allows 20% to drop out. The co-primary outcomes are the pattern and magnitude of the migration of the glenoid component assessed by radiostereometric analysis and the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index. The secondary outcomes are inferior scapular notching, patient-reported and functional outcomes (Oxford shoulder score, Constant-Murley score and pain), side effects and complications, changes in bone mineral density and economy. The included patients will be examined before the surgery, within 1 week and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after. Discussion No previous studies have compared the conventional reverse shoulder arthroplasty with the lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty in a randomized controlled trial regarding migration and functional outcome. Furthermore, radiostereometric analysis has not been used to evaluate the migration of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in a randomized controlled trial. This study intends to determine which treatment has the most optimal outcome for the benefit of future patients with an indication for reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Trial registration The study has been notified to Pactius and has approval number P-2021-231. Furthermore, the study will be registered on Clinicaltrials.gov before starting the inclusion.

Abstract Background Sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of rare malignant tumors of mesenchymal origin in the musculoskeletal system. The main treatment is surgery often supplemented with pre-or postoperative radiotherapy. A retrospective study by Bedi et al. indicated that negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) reduced the risk of postoperative wound complications in patients treated with preoperative radiation followed by surgical tumor removal of lower extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STS), and the use of NPWT was not associated with an increased risk of local recurrence. Previous studies have shown that NPWT can reduce postoperative complications. STS surgeries are a high-risk procedure concerning wound complications. Methods Non-blinded single-center randomized controlled trial comparing NPWT versus conventional wound dressing and postoperative wound complications after surgical removal of deep-seated high-malignant STS of the extremities or trunk wall Sample-size calculation: 154 STS patients (80% risk of avoiding type II error, 5% risk of type I error, and an 80% wound complication risk) Block randomization of 8 into: Group A: Conventional wound dressing Group B: NPWT (PREVENA PLUS™ Incision Management System) Inclusion criteria: Surgery for a deep-seated STS of an extremity or the trunk wall Exclusion criteria: Age

Abstract Background Aseptic loosening is one of the major reasons for late revision in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The risk of aseptic loosening can be detected using radiostereometric analysis (RSA), whereby micromovements (migration) can be measured, and thus RSA is recommended in the phased introduction of orthopedic implants. Decrease in bone mineral density (BMD), as measured by dual-energy x ray absorptiometry (DXA), is related to the breaking strength of the bone, which is measured concurrently by RSA. The aim of the study was to evaluate bone remodeling and implant migration with cemented asymmetrical tibial and uncemented femoral components after TKA with a follow up period of 2 years. Methods This was a prospective longitudinal cohort study of 29 patients (number of female/male patients 17/12, mean age 65.2 years), received a hybrid Persona® TKA (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA) consisting of a cemented tibial, an all-polyethylene patella, and uncemented trabecular metal femoral components. Follow up: preoperative, 1 week, and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery, and double examinations for RSA and DXA were performed at 12 months. RSA results were presented as maximal total point of motion (MTPM) and segmental motion (translation and rotation), and DXA results were presented as changes in BMD in different regions of interest (ROI). Results MTPM at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months was 0.65 mm, 0.84 mm, 0.92 mm, and 0.96 mm for the femoral component and 0.54 mm, 0.60 mm, 0.64 mm, and 0.68 mm, respectively, for the tibial component. The highest MTPM occurred within the first 3 months. Afterwards most of the curves flattened and stabilized. Between 12 and 24 months after surgery, 16% of femoral components had migrated by more than 0.10 mm and 15% of tibial components had migrated by more than 0.2 mm. Percentage change in BMD in each ROI for distal femur was as follows: ROI I 26.7%, ROI II 9.2% and ROI III 3.3%. BMD and at the proximal tibia: ROI I 8.2%, ROI II 8.6% and ROI III 7.0% after 2 years compared with 1 week postoperative results. There was no significant correlation between maximal percentwise change in BMD and MTPM after 2 years. Conclusion Migration patterns and changes in BMD related to femoral components after TKA in our study correspond well with previous studies; we observed marginally greater migration with the tibial component.

Objectives: Previous multicenter studies report variable outcomes and failure rates after tumor-prosthetic reconstructions. The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate implant survival, limb survival, and functional outcome in a cohort of patients who underwent resection of primary malignancies or aggressive benign bone tumors and reconstruction with modern tumor-prostheses in the lower extremities and (2) to provide comparison to a historical cohort on previous generations of tumor-prostheses from the same center. Methods: A longitudinal retrospective single-center study of 72 consecutive patients (F/M = 30/42), mean age = 44 (range = 7–84) years with bone, soft tissue sarcoma adjacent to bone (n = 69), and aggressive benign bone tumors (n = 3) having surgery between 2006 and 2016 with bone resection and reconstruction with tumor-prostheses were compared to a historical cohort from1985 to 2005. Revisions were classified as major and minor revisions. Causes of failure were classified according to the Henderson classification. Fine and Gray competing risk analysis was used for assessing cumulative incidence for implant revision and limb amputation. Functional outcome was evaluated with Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score system. Results: Forty-seven patients were alive at the end of the study. Mean follow-up was 6 years (range = 2–13 years). Ten-year cumulative risk of major revision was 18% (95% confidence interval = 9%–28%). Deep infection and recurrence of tumor caused most revisions in modern tumor-prostheses. Ten-year cumulative incidence of limb amputation was 11% (95% confidence interval = 3%–18%). According to the Henderson classification, the overall predominant failure mode was non-mechanical (n = 20, 51%). Mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score was 20 (67%) (range = 0–30). Conclusion: A minimum of 2 years follow-up with modern modular tumor-prostheses demonstrated a relatively low risk of implant failure and amputation and also an acceptable functional outcome. No statistical difference of, implant survival, limb survival and functional outcome between tumor-prostheses over two time periods was observed, possibly explained by Type 2 error.

Abstract Background Glenohumeral osteoarthritis can, in the most severe cases, require surgery with insertion of a shoulder arthroplasty. A design with a stem in the humeral bone canal is currently regarded as the standard treatment option in patients who have an intact rotator cuff function, but complications related to the stem including humeral fractures can have devastating consequences. By using a stemless humeral component, stem-related complications can be reduced. The aim of this study is to compare the Comprehensive Nano stemless total shoulder arthroplasty (intervention group) with the Comprehensive stemmed total shoulder arthroplasty (control group). Materials and methods This is a randomized controlled trial comparing the stemless and the stemmed total shoulder arthroplasty. All Danish citizens with glenohumeral osteoarthritis indicating a total shoulder arthroplasty referred to the orthopedic department at Copenhagen University Hospital in Herlev/Gentofte will be offered participation. The following exclude from participation: below 18 years of age, cognitive or linguistic impairment, insufficient function of the rotator cuff, poor bone quality, and ASA groups 4–5. A total of 122 patients will be included of which 56 will be part of a radiostereometric analysis (RSA) study of humeral component migration. The primary outcomes are magnitude of migration of the humeral component assessed by RSA and patient-reported outcome by Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index (WOOS). The secondary outcomes are additional patient-reported outcomes, functional outcome, readmission, complications, revisions, and changes in bone mineral density (BMD) of the proximal humerus assessed by duel energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and economy (cost-utility analysis). The patients are examined before the operation and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperative. Discussion To our knowledge, RSA has never been used to access migration of a stemmed or a stemless humeral component nor has the stemmed and the stemless humeral component been compared with regard to pain relief and shoulder function in a randomized clinical trial. Today, the two designs are considered equal in the treatment of osteoarthritis. The study will provide surgeons and patients with information about shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and assist them in decision-making. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04105478 . Registered on 25 September 2019