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 Tools annual

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 monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background   Among various types of composite biological reconstruction, pasteurized autograft-prosthesis composite (PPC) is popular when allograft is unavailable. Previous limited cohort study indicated result comparable to tumor prosthesis. However, as case number and follow-up increase, we experienced more complications than anticipated. We questioned the usefulness of PPC as a viable reconstructive option.Methods   We reviewed 142 PPCs and analyzed overall and location-related survival and factors associated with the failure of PPC.Results   Twenty-year survival rate of 142 PPCs was 39.8 ± 10.0%. Fifty-two (36.6%) of 142 PPCs showed failure. Among various locations, the proximal femur showed best survival: 78.0 ± 9.9%. Final status of the 52 failed PPCs was modular tumor prosthesis in 23 (43%), arthrodesis in 11 (21%), pseudarthrosis in 7 (13%), amputation in 7 (13%), and allograft-prosthesis composite in 4 (8%). Tumor volume > 200 cc ( p  = 0.001), pasteurization length ≤ 10 cm ( p  = 0.002), male sex ( p  = 0.02), and locations in pelvis or tibia ( p  = 0.029) were poor prognostic factors.Conclusions   Long-term survival of PPCs was below expectations. Despite the complexity of the procedure, there is little survival gain over tumor prosthesis. PPC may be indicated when a modular prosthesis is not readily available.

Pasteurized Autograft-Prosthesis Composite Reconstruction May Not Be a Viable Primary Procedure for Large Skeletal Defects after Resection of Sarcoma