Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association (대한정형외과학회지)

Korean Orthopaedic Association (대한정형외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Periprosthetic Fracture around Tumor Prosthesis, Comparison of Results with or without Cortical Strut Onlay Allograft

종양인공관절 주위 골절의 피질골 지주 중첩 동종골 이식술 유무에 따른 결과 비교

  • Kim, Yongsung (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea Cancer Center Hospital) ;
  • Cho, Wan Hyeong (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea Cancer Center Hospital) ;
  • Song, Won Seok (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea Cancer Center Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Kyupyung (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea Cancer Center Hospital) ;
  • Jeon, Dae-Geun (Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Korea Cancer Center Hospital)
  • Received : 2020.03.23
  • Accepted : 2020.06.01
  • Published : 2021.02.28
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Periprosthetic fractures of a tumor prosthesis are rare but have difficulties in achieving sound fixation because of the poor bone quality, which increases the risk of loosening or re-fracture, even after bone union. A cortical strut onlay allograft was adopted for peri-prosthetic fractures after hip arthroplasty into the periprosthetic fracture of a tumor prosthesis, assuming that it would assist in firm fixation, shorten the time to union, and increase the bone stock, thereby, lower the chance of loosening and re-fracture. Materials and Methods: This study reviewed 27 patients (30 cases) of periprosthetic fracture of tumor prosthesis. Sixteen cases (allograft group) had augmentation with an onlay allograft, while 14 cases (conventional group) had internal fixation or conservative treatment. The following were assessed; mode of periprosthetic fracture, difference in the time to union between a strut cortical onlay allograft and without it, and survival of prosthesis, complication, and functional outcome between the two groups. Results: According to the unified classification system (UCS), 21 cases were type B (70.0%; B1, 14; B2, 1; B3, 6) and 9 cases were type C. The five-, 10-year survival of the 30 reconstructions by Kaplan-Meier plot was 84.5%±4.18% and 42.2%±7.83%, respectively. The average time to bone union of the entire cohort was 5.1 months (range, 2.0-11.2 months). The allograft group (3.5 months) showed a shorter period for union than the conventional group (7.2 months) (p<0.0001). All four cases of major complications occurred in the conventional group. Two cases with loosening and anterior angulation were treated with a change of prosthesis, and another with infection underwent amputation. The remaining case with loosening had conservative management. At the final follow-up, the average Musculosketal Tumor Society score of the allograft group (26.1) was better than that of the conventional group (20.9). Conclusion: Bone union in periprosthetic fractures of a tumor prosthesis can be achieved, but the minimization of complications is important. An onlay allograft facilitates firm fixation and increases the bone stock with a shortened time to union. This simple method can minimize the risk of loosening, joint contracture, and re-fracture.

목적: 종양인공관절 주위 골절은 안정된 고정의 어려움과 골유합 후에도 골질 약화로 해리 및 재골절 위험이 많다. 피질골 지주 중첩 동종골 이식술을 종양인공관절 주위 골절에 적용하면 내고정도 쉽고, 골유합 기간도 단축되며, 합병증도 줄일 수 있을 것이라고 생각하였다. 본 연구는 종양인공관절 주위 골절 27예(30 골절)의 골절의 양상과 치료 후 재건 술식에 따른 생존율 및 합병증, 중첩 동종골 이식술 추가 여부에 따라 골유합 기간 및 기능적 결과가 차이가 있는지 분석하였다. 대상 및 방법: 골절 치료 시 판형 동종골 이식을 한 군 16예와 시행하지 않은 군 14예를 비교하였다. 분석항목은 종양인공관절 치환술부터 골절까지 기간, 골절의 양상, 골유합 기간 차이, 합병증, 및 기능적 결과를 기술하였다. 결과: 골절 양상은 unified classification system (UCS) B형이 21예(70.0%, 21/30)로 가장 많았으며 그 중 B1이 14예(46.7%, 14/30), B2가 1예(3.4%, 1/30), B3가 6예(20.0%, 6/30)였고 C형이 9예(30.0%, 9/30)였다. Kaplan-Meier 법에 의한 30 재건 부위의 5년, 10년 생존율은 각각 84.5%±4.18%, 42.2%±7.83%였다. 전체 30예의 골유합 기간은 평균 5.1개월(범위, 2.0-11.2개월)이었다. 동종골 이식군은 평균 3.5개월(범위, 2.0-6.26개월)로 고식적 고정군의 평균 7.2개월(범위, 4.0-11.2개월)보다 짧았다(p<0.0001). 최종 기능평가상 동종골 이식군은 평균 26.1점으로 고식적 고정군의 평균 20.9점보다 높았다(p<0.0001). 합병증은 4예로 모두 동종골을 사용하지 않은 군에서 있었다. 결론: 종양인공관절 주위 골절은 드물고 골유합도 비교적 잘 이루어지나 유합 후 합병증 최소화가 중요하다. 판형 중첩 동종골 이식술은 골유합 기간을 단축, 골질 증가, 해리위험성 감소 효과가 있으며 종양인공관절 주위 골절에 유용한 방법이다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 연구는 과학기술정보통신부 한국원자력의학원 연구운영비지원사업의 지원을 받아 수행하였다(No.50549-2020).

References

  1. Henderson ER, Groundland JS, Pala E, et al. Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:418-29. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00834
  2. Biau D, Faure F, Katsahian S, Jeanrot C, Tomeno B, Anract P. Survival of total knee replacement with a megaprosthesis after bone tumor resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1285-93. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200606000-00016
  3. Healey JH, Abdeen A, Morris CD, Athanasian EA, Boland PJ. Telescope allograft method to reconstitute the diaphysis in limb salvage surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:1813-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0548-1
  4. Duncan CP, Haddad FS. The Unified Classification System (UCS): improving our understanding of periprosthetic fractures. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B:713-6. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B6.34040
  5. Gebhart M, Shumelinsky F. Management of periprosthetic fractures in patients treated with a megaprosthesis for malignant bone tumours around the knee. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012;78:558-63.
  6. Capanna R, Scoccianti G, Frenos F, Vilardi A, Beltrami G, Campanacci DA. What was the survival of megaprostheses in lower limb reconstructions after tumor resections? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:820-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3736-1
  7. Capanna R, Morris HG, Campanacci D, Del Ben M, Campanacci M. Modular uncemented prosthetic reconstruction after resection of tumours of the distal femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76:178-86.
  8. Healey JH, Morris CD, Athanasian EA, Boland PJ. Compress knee arthroplasty has 80% 10-year survivorship and novel forms of bone failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:774-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2635-6
  9. Kinkel S, Lehner B, Kleinhans JA, Jakubowitz E, Ewerbeck V, Heisel C. Medium to long-term results after reconstruction of bone defects at the knee with tumor endoprostheses. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101:166-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21441
  10. Sim IW, Tse LF, Ek ET, Powell GJ, Choong PF. Salvaging the limb salvage: management of complications following endoprosthetic reconstruction for tumours around the knee. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:796-802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2006.10.007
  11. Young SW, Walker CG, Pitto RP. Functional outcome of femoral peri prosthetic fracture and revision hip arthroplasty: a matched-pair study from the New Zealand Registry. Acta Orthop. 2008;79:483-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670710015463
  12. Haddad FS, Duncan CP, Berry DJ, Lewallen DG, Gross AE, Chandler HP. Periprosthetic femoral fractures around well-fixed implants: use of cortical onlay allografts with or without a plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:945-50. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200206000-00008
  13. Barut N, Anract P, Babinet A, Biau D. Peri-prosthetic fractures around tumor endoprostheses: a retrospective analysis of eighteen cases. Int Orthop. 2015;39:1851-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-2915-3
  14. Herndon CL, Nowell JA, Sarpong NO, Cooper HJ, Shah RP, Geller JA. Risk factors for periprosthetic femur fracture and influence of femoral fixation using the mini-anterolateral approach in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:774-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.011
  15. Kabo JM, Yang RS, Dorey FJ, Eckardt JJ. In vivo rotational stability of the kinematic rotating hinge knee prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;336:166-76. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-199703000-00024
  16. Kim YH, Mansukhani SA, Kim JS, Park JW. Use of locking plate and strut onlay allografts for periprosthetic fracture around well-fixed femoral components. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:166-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.064
  17. Adams MR, Dunn C, Sirkin MS, Reilly MC. Long-term bisphosphonate therapy-induced periprosthetic femoral stress fracture in a sliding hip screw implant: a unique case report. J Orthop Case Rep. 2016;6:53-6. https://doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2250-0685.504
  18. Bhattacharyya R, Spence S, O'Neill G, Periasamy K. Bisphosphonate-induced periprosthetic fracture: a cause of painful total hip arthroplasty. Case Rep Surg. 2014;2014:631709. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/631709
  19. Chen F, Bhattacharyya T. Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after long-term bisphosphonate use: a case report. JBJS Case Connect. 2012;2:e21. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.CC.K.00085