20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Allograft Reconstruction for the Treatment of Musculoskeletal Tumors of the Upper Extremity

      other

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In comparison with the lower extremity, there is relatively paucity literature reporting survival and clinical results of allograft reconstructions after excision of a bone tumor of the upper extremity. We analyze the survival of allograft reconstructions in the upper extremity and analyze the final functional score according to anatomical site and type of reconstruction. A consecutive series of 70 allograft reconstruction in the upper limb with a mean followup of 5 years was analyzed, 38 osteoarticular allografts, 24 allograft-prosthetic composites, and 8 intercalary allografts. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the allografts was performed, with implant revision for any cause and amputation used as the end points. The function evaluation was performed using MSTS functional score. Sixteen patients (23%) had revision surgery for 5 factures, 2 infections, 5 allograft resorptions, and 2 local recurrences. Allograft survival at five years was 79% and 69% at ten years. In the group of patients treated with an osteoarticular allograft the articular surface survival was 90% at five years and 54% at ten years. The limb salvage rate was 98% at five and 10 years. We conclude that articular deterioration and fracture were the most frequent mode of failure in proximal humeral osteoarticular reconstructions and allograft resorption in elbow reconstructions. The best functional score was observed in the intercalary humeral allograft.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system.

          The need for a standardized system of end result reporting of various surgical alternatives after limb salvaging and ablative procedures for musculoskeletal tumors was clearly recognized during the first International Symposium on Limb Salvage (ISOLS) in 1981. During the ensuing four biannual symposia, there has been an ongoing developmental experience with a system extensively field tested in 1989 by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS). This system of functional evaluation has been adopted by the MSTS and ISOLS for their joint studies and program presentation. In brief, the system assigns numerical values (0-5) for each of six categories: pain, and function and emotional acceptance in upper and lower extremities; supports, and walking and gait in the lower extremity; and hand positioning, and dexterity and lifting ability in the upper extremity. Demographic information and a patient satisfaction component is included. A numerical score and percent rating is calculated to allow for comparison of results. The system has been field tested in 220 patients with low (+/-) interobserver variability. It was well accepted by the participants, and its usage is recommended by the MSTS to facilitate valid comparative end result studies of musculoskeletal tumor reconstructions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction

            The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome, complications and survival of the three most commonly used surgical reconstructions of the proximal humerus after transarticular tumour resection. Between 1985 and 2005, 38 consecutive proximal humeral reconstructions using allograft-prosthesis composite (n = 10), osteoarticular allograft (n = 13) or a modular tumour prosthesis (n = 14) were performed in our clinic. The mean follow-up was ten years (1–25). Of these, 27 were disease free at latest follow-up (mean 16.8 years) and ten had died of disease. The endoprosthetic group presented the smallest complication rate of 21% (n = 1), compared to 40% (n = 4) in the allograft-prosthesis composite and 62% (n = 8) in the osteoarticular allograft group. Only one revision was performed in the endoprosthetic group, in a case of shoulder instability. Infection after revision (n = 3), pseudoarthrosis (n = 2), fracture of the allograft (n = 3) and shoulder instability (n = 4) were the major complications of allograft use in general. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a significantly better implant survival for the endoprosthetic group (log-rank p = 0.002). At final follow-up the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society scores were an average of 72% for the allograft-prosthetic composite (n = 7, median follow-up 17 years), 76% for the osteoarticular allograft (n = 3, 19 years) and 77% for the endoprosthetic reconstruction (n = 10, 5 years) groups. An endoprosthetic reconstruction after transarticular proximal humeral resection resulted in the lowest complication rate, highest implant survival and comparable functional results when compared to allograft-prosthesis composite and osteoarticular allograft use. We believe that the surgical approach that best preserves the abductor mechanism and provides sufficient surgical exposure for tumour resection contributed to better functional results and glenohumeral stability in the endoprosthetic group.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reconstruction of the proximal humerus after wide resection of tumours.

              In 45 patients we assessed the functional results and complications for three different reconstructive procedures after resection of primary tumours of the proximal humerus. An osteoarticular allograft was used in 11, a clavicula pro humero operation in 15 and a tumour prosthesis in 19. The glenoid was resected with the proximal humerus in 25 patients. The axillary nerve was resected in 42 patients. The complication rate was lowest after reconstruction with a tumour prosthesis. The clavicula pro humero operation resulted in the most revisions. Cumulative survival rates for all the reconstructive procedures were similar. At follow-up at two years the functional results for the three reconstructive procedures were the same with a mean functional rating of 79% (Musculoskeletal Tumor Society). Excision of the glenoid had no influence on the functional result. Our findings indicate that the use of a tumour prosthesis is the most reliable limb-salvage procedure for the proximal humerus. The clavicula pro humero is an appropriate procedure if a prosthesis cannot be used.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sarcoma
                Sarcoma
                SRCM
                Sarcoma
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                1357-714X
                1369-1643
                2013
                14 February 2013
                : 2013
                : 925413
                Affiliations
                Institute of Orthopedics “Carlos E. Ottolenghi,” Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, 1199 Buenos Aires, Argentina
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Andreas Leithner

                Article
                10.1155/2013/925413
                3586508
                23476115
                21ffc200-5078-42fd-975b-f9a7105030c7
                Copyright © 2013 Luis A. Aponte-Tinao et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 9 October 2012
                : 26 December 2012
                : 18 January 2013
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article