English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Intercalary endoprosthetic reconstructions have been reserved for patients with a limited life expectancy due to reports of high rates of early mechanical and reconstruction failure. Materials and methods In this study, we retrospectively analyzed 28 patients who underwent intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction of the femur ( n  = 17) or tibia ( n  = 11) regarding reconstruction survival and causes of complications and reconstruction failure. Results A total of 56 stems were implanted in this collective, 67.9% of which were implanted using cementation. Eight different stem designs were implanted. The mean patient age at the time of operation was 42.3 years. The mean bone defect needing reconstruction measured 18.5 cm. Resection margins were clear in 96.4% of patients. Of twenty-six complications, five were not implant-associated. We observed infection in 10.7% ( n  = 3) and traumatic periprosthetic fracture in 3.6% ( n  = 1) of cases. The most frequent complication was aseptic stem loosening (ASL) (53.8%;  n  = 14) occurring in eight patients (28.6%). The metaphyseal and meta-diaphyseal regions of femur and tibia were most susceptible to ASL with a rate of 39.1% and 31.3% respectively. No ASLs occurred in epiphyseal or diaphyseal location. Overall reconstruction survival was 43.9% and 64.3% including patients who died of disease with their implant intact. Overall limb survival was 72.7%. Conclusions Proper planning of segmental reconstructions including stem design with regard to unique anatomical and biomechanical properties is mandatory to address the high rates of ASL in metaphyseal and metadiaphyseal stem sites. With continued efforts of improving stem design in these implantation sites and decreasing rates of mechanical failure, indications for segmental megaendoprostheses may also extend to younger patients with the localized disease for their advantages of early weight bearing and a lack of donor-site morbidity.

archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery

Reconstruction survival of segmental megaendoprostheses: a retrospective analysis of 28 patients treated for intercalary bone defects after musculoskeletal tumor resections