What Is the Prosthetic Survival After Resection and Intercalary Endoprosthetic Reconstruction for Diaphyseal Bone Metastases of the Humerus and Femur?

Abstract

Abstract Background Large metastatic lesions of the diaphysis can cause considerable pain and result in difficult surgical challenges. Resection and cemented intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction offer one solution to the problem, but it is an extensive operation that might not be tolerated well by a debilitated patient. The risk of aseptic loosening and revision after intercalary endoprosthetic replacement has varied in previous reports, which have not examined the risk of revision in the context of patient survival. Questions/purposes (1) In a small case series from one institution, what is the survivorship of patients after cemented intercalary endoprosthetic replacement for diaphyseal metastasis, and what is the cumulative incidence of revision for any reason? (2) What are the complications associated with cemented intercalary reconstruction? (3) What is the functional outcome after the procedure as assessed by the MSTS93 score? Methods We retrospectively studied 19 patients with diaphyseal long bone metastases who were treated with resection and cemented intercalary endoprosthetic reconstruction by five participating surgeons at one referral center from 2006 to 2017. There were 11 men and eight women with a median age of 59 years (range 46 to 80 years). The minimum follow-up required for this series was 12 months; however, patients who reached an endpoint (death, radiographic loosening, or implant revision) before that time were included. One of these 19 patients was lost to follow-up but was not known to have died. The median follow-up was 24 months (range 0 to 116 months). Eight of the 19 patients presented with pathologic fractures. Ten of 19 lesions involved the femur, and nine of 19 were in the humerus. The most common pathologic finding was renal cell carcinoma (in 10 of 19). Survival estimates of the patients were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A competing risks estimator was used to evaluate implant survival, using death of the patient as the competing risk. We also estimated the cumulative incidence of aseptic loosening in a competing risk analysis. Radiographs were analyzed for radiolucency at the bone-cement-implant interfaces, fracture, integrity of the cement mantle, and component position stability. Complications were assessed using record review that was performed by an individual who was not involved in the initial care of the patients. Functional outcomes were assessed using the MSTS93 scoring system. Results Patient survivorship was 68% (95% CI 50% to 93%) at 1 year, 53% (95% CI 34% to 81%) at 2 years, and 14% (95% CI 4% to 49%) at 5 years; the median patient survival time after reconstruction was 25 months (range 0 to 116 months). In the competing risk analysis, using death as the competing risk, the cumulative incidence of implant revision was 11% (95% CI 2% to 29%) at 1 year and 16% (95% CI 4% to 36%) at 5 years after surgery; however, the cumulative incidence of aseptic loosening (with death as a competing risk) was 22% (95% CI 6% to 43%) at 1 year and 33% (95% CI 13% to 55%) at 5 years after surgery. Other complications included one patient who died postoperatively of cardiac arrest, one patient with delayed wound healing, two patients with bone recurrence, and one patient who experienced local soft tissue recurrence that was excised without implant revision. Total MSTS93 scores improved from a mean of 12.6 ± 8.1 (42% ± 27%) preoperatively to 21.5 ± 5.0 (72% ± 17%) at 3 months postoperatively (p < 0.001) and 21.6 ± 8.5 (72% ± 28%) at 2 years postoperatively (p = 0.98; 3 months versus 2 years). Conclusion Resection of diaphyseal metastases with intercalary reconstruction can provide stability and short-term improvement in function for patients with advanced metastatic disease and extensive cortical destruction. Aseptic loosening is a concern, particularly in the humerus; however, the competing risk analysis suggests the procedure is adequate for most patients, because many in this series died of disease without undergoing revision. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study.