Evaluation of utilizing cement-in-cement technique for endoprosthetic revision surgeries around the knee
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20220916-00554
- VernacularTitle:膝关节肿瘤型假体非感染性失败骨水泥固定翻修术的疗效
- Author:
Zhiye DU
1
;
Xiaodong TANG
;
Rongli YANG
;
Dasen LI
;
Yi YANG
;
Wei GUO
Author Information
1. 北京大学人民医院骨与软组织肿瘤治疗中心，北京 100044
- Keywords:
Knee joint;
Neoplasms;
Arthroplasty, replacement, knee;
Prosthesis failure;
Reoperation;
Polymethyl methacrylate
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2023;43(10):620-628
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical efficacy of cement-in-cement (CiC) technique for endoprosthetic revision surgeries of noninfectious causes around the knee.Methods:All of 128 patients who had received cement-in-cement technique for endoprosthetic revision from February 2002 to August 2020 including 71 males and 57 females, whose mean age was 33.5±15.4 years (range, 8-77 years). 128 patients included 73 cases of osteosarcoma, 38 cases of giant cell tumors, 8 cases of undifferentiated sarcoma, 4 cases of chondrosarcoma, 2 cases of Ewing sarcoma, 2 cases of fibrosarcoma and 1 case of synovial sarcoma, with 105 cases in distal femur and 23 cases in proximal tibia. The failure mode classification included 64 cases of aseptic loosening, 47 cases of structure failure and 17 cases of tumor progression. 16 out of the 19 endoprosthese failure after the first cement-in-cement procedure received a second cement-in-cement procedure. The survival of revised prostheses, duration of the operation, the amount of blood loss, epidemiological data, complications and limb function were enrolled and statistical analyzed.Results:The mean follow-up from CiC revision was 127±33 months (range, 6-326 months). There were 25 (19.5%) complications for the first CiC procedure and 19 (14.8%) of the 25 complications lead to the protheses failure including 5 (3.9%) structure failure, 6 (4.7%) aseptic loosening, 2 (1.6%) tumor recurrence and 6 (4.7%) infection. The other 6 cases included 5 poor superficial wound healing and 1 patellar ligament rupture. All were recovered after debridement and tendon repair. The cumulative survival rates of first CiC procedure were 85.0%, 76.6% and 70.7% at 5, 10 and 15 years, respectively. Limb salvage rate was 97.7%. Sixteen of the 19 cases received a second CiC revision. The mean operative time (206±51 min vs. 258±41 min, t=3.18, P=0.399), blood loss (596±217.99 ml vs. 621±245.84 ml, t=0.30, P=0.926) and the median MSTS 93 score (26.38±2.47 vs. 25.06±2.11, t=1.61, P=0.376) of the first and second CiC procedure for the 16 cases were similar. Conclusion:CiC technique is a repeatable, conservative and viable option for endoprosthetic revision surgeries of noninfectious causes around the knee, with acceptable prosthetic survival rate, complication rate and limb function.
