Proximal Femur Salvage in Revision Knee Arthroplasty Due to Oncologic Indications:Long-term Results of Onlay and Overlapping Allograft in Revision Surgeries
- Author:
Sanghyun CHO
1
;
Dae-Geun JEON
;
Wan Hyeong CHO
;
Won Seok SONG
;
Yongsung KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2023;15(5):853-863
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Background:Mechanical failures of tumor endoprosthesis in the distal femur usually require revision surgery. We investigated if the proximal femur host bone can be salvaged by onlay and overlapping allograft in revision surgeries due to aseptic loosening and stem fractures.
Methods:We retrospectively reviewed 18 patients (7 men and 11 women) with osteosarcoma around the knee. The entire cohort was classified into three subgroups (no bone graft: 6, onlay allograft: 7, and overlapping allograft: 5) according to our treatment strategy.
Results:The median interval from the initial surgery to the revision was 94.5 months (range, 21–219 months), and the median follow-up period from the revision surgery was 88.0 months (range, 24–179 months). At the last follow-up, 9 of the 18 patients maintained their endoprostheses, and the 5-year prosthesis survival rate was 57.9%. Limb survival was 100%. Five-year prosthesis survival rate was 66.7% in the no bone graft group, 85.7% in the onlay allograft group while 30.0% in the overlapping allograft group. In the no bone graft group and onlay allograft group, 66.7% (4/6) and 57.1% (4/7) maintained their revision prostheses while no prostheses survived in the overlapping allograft group. Recurrent stem loosening was observed in 14.2% (1/7) and 60.0% (3/5) of the onlay allograft and overlapping allograft groups, respectively, despite allograft bone union. The complication rate was 66.7% (12/18) in the entire cohort. The most common type of complication was infection (n = 6), followed by aseptic loosening (n = 4) and mechanical failure (n = 2).
Conclusions:This study indicates that onlay allograft can be used as a supportive method in revising failed endoprosthesis if the extent of host bone destruction is extensive. However, applying overlapping allograft to secure bone stock showed a high rate of mechanical failures and infection in the long term. Future studies with a larger cohort are necessary to assess the prognostic factors for the higher complication rate in overlapping allograft and the need for overlapping allograft. Surveillance with consideration of the risk of anteromedial osteolysis in allograft and efforts for prevention of periprosthetic infection are essential.
