Treatment and outcome of malignant bone tumors of the proximal humerus: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Xiaoyang Li¹  Zhihong Li¹  Xiangsheng Zhang¹  Xiaoning Guo¹  Qing Zhang¹  Tang Liu¹ 

[1]Department of Orthopaedics, the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410011, P.R. China

关键词: Recycled pasteurized autograft;    Endoprosthetic reconstruction;    Humerus;    Malignant bone tumors;   

Others  :  1128720
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-69

 received in 2013-08-31, accepted in 2014-02-28,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome, complications and survival of the commonly used surgical reconstructions of the proximal humerus after intrarticular tumour resection in our hospital.

Methods

Between 1998 and 2010, 41 consecutive proximal humeral reconstructions using prosthesis (group P, n = 25) or recycled pasteurized autograft combined with non-vascularised fibula autograft (group B, n = 16) were performed.

Results

The mean follow-up was 57.7 months. Fourteen patients (8 patients in group P and 6 in group B) died during the follow-up period, the disease-specific survival of patients in group P was 74.5% at 5 years and in group B was 67.0%. Local recurrences were occurred in 3 cases (12.0%) in group P and 2 (12.5%) in group B. Pulmonary metastases were observed in 4 patients (16.0%) in group P and 4 (25.0%) in group B. There was no significant difference in the incidence of local recurrence, pulmonary metastasis or death of disease. Revisions were indicated in 9 patients (36.0%) in group P and 5 (31.25%) in group B. Thought the incidence of revisions was higher in group P, there was no significant difference in these two groups. The Kaplan-Meier 5-year implant survival estimates, with revision for any reason as the end point, were 80.6% and 68.8% for group P and group B, respectively. The mean MSTS Score was 63.6% in group P and 63.0% in group B. These differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

The study could show that prosthetic reconstruction and reconstruction with recycled pasteurized autograft are similar in terms of their local recurrence and metastasis, while the incidence of revisions was higher for patients with prosthetic reconstruction.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Liu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Potter BK, Adams SC, Pitcher JD Jr, Malinin TI, Temple HT: Proximal humerus reconstructions for tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009, 467(4):1035-1041.
• [2]El-Sherbiny M: Reconstruction of the proximal humerus after wide resection of tumors:comparison of three reconstructive options. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 2008, 20(4):369-378.
• [3]Yang Q, Li J, Yang Z, Li X, Li Z: Limb sparing surgery for bone tumours of the shoulder girdle: the oncological and functional results. Int Orthop 2010, 34(6):869-875.
• [4]Aponte-Tinao LA, Ayerza MA, Muscolo DL, Farfalli GL: Allograft reconstruction for the treatment of musculoskeletal tumors of the upper extremity. Sarcoma 2013, 2013:925413.
• [5]van de Sande MA, Dijkstra PD, Taminiau AH: Proximal humerus reconstruction after tumour resection: biological versus endoprosthetic reconstruction. Int Orthop 2011, 35(9):1375-1380.
• [6]Getty PJ, Peabody TD: Complications and functional outcomes of reconstruction with an osteoarticular allograft after intra-articular resection of the proximal aspect of the humerus. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999, 81(8):1138-1146.
• [7]Asavamongkolkul A, Eckardt JJ, Eilber FR, Dorey FJ, Ward WG, Kelly CM, Wirganowicz PZ, Kabo JM: Endoprosthetic reconstruction for malignant upper extremity tumors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999, 360:207-220.
• [8]Wang J, Shen J, Dickinson IC: Functional outcome of arthrodesis with a vascularized fibular graft and a rotational latissimus dorsi flap after proximal humerus sarcoma resection. Ann Surg Oncol 2011, 18(7):1852-1859.
• [9]Rödl RW, Gosheger G, Gebert C, Lindner N, Ozaki T, Winkelmann W: Reconstruction of the proximal humerus after wide resection of tumours. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2002, 84(7):1004-1008.
• [10]Abdeen A, Healey JH: Allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction of the proximal part of the humerus: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010, 92(Suppl 1 Pt 2):188-196.
• [11]Abdeen A, Hoang BH, Athanasian EA, Morris CD, Boland PJ, Healey JH: Allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction of the proximal part of the humerus: functional outcome and survivorship. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91(10):2406-2415.
• [12]Enneking WF: A system of staging musculoskeletal neoplasms. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986, 204:9-24.
• [13]Enneking WF, Dunham W, Gebhardt MC, Malawar M, Pritchard DJ: A system for the functional evaluation of reconstructive procedures after surgical treatment of tumors of the musculoskeletal system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993, 286:241-246.
• [14]Liu T, Guo X, Zhang X, Li Z, Zhang Q: Reconstruction with pasteurized autograft for primary malignant bone tumor of distal tibia. Bull Cancer 2012, 99(9):87-91.
• [15]Manfrini M, Vanel D, De Paolis M, Malaguti C, Innocenti M, Ceruso M, Capanna R, Mercuri M: Imaging of vascularized fibula autograft placed inside a massive allograft in reconstruction of lower limb bone tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004, 182(4):963-970.
• [16]Li J, Wang Z, Pei GX, Guo Z: Biological reconstruction using massive bone allograft with intramedullary vascularized fibular flap after intercalary resection of humeral malignancy. J Surg Oncol 2011, 104(3):244-249.
• [17]Sugiura H, Takahashi M, Nakanishi K, Nishida Y, Kamei Y: Pasteurized intercalary autogenous bone graft combined with vascularized fibula. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007, 456:196-202.