In Vivo. 2021 Jul-Aug;35(4):2275-2281. doi: 10.21873/invivo.12500.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Distal femur and proximal tibia replacements as limb-salvage procedures with good outcome parameters for patients with tumours have been broadly described. However, the overall midterm outcome in a mixed, heterogeneous patient collective is still unclear.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 59 consecutive patients (33 for primary and 26 for revision surgery) between 1998 and 2017. Indication for implantation was tumour (n=16), periprosthetic fracture (n=14), traumatic fracture (n=14), infection (n=10), aseptic loosening (n=3), and pathological fracture (n=2). The mean follow-up duration was 3 years. Clinical functions were evaluated by Toronto Extremity Salvage Score and Knee Society Score. Knee extension and flexion force were measured.
RESULTS: The overall survival rate of arthroplasties was 59% (n=35). Major complication s were observed in 36 (61%) patients. During the follow-up period, 14 (24%) patients died. We recorded periprosthetic joint infection in 21 (36%) patients, recurrence of tumour in two (3%), and aseptic implant failure in three (5%). The mean Toronto Extremity Salvage Score was 66±33, and the mean Knee Society Score was 49±30. The mean extension force on the operated side was significantly reduced at 60° and 180° compared to the healthy side (p=0.0151 and p=0.0411, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Distal femur and proximal tibia replacements showed limited clinical function in a heterogeneous patient collective. Indication for implantation should be considered carefully.
PMID:34182506 | DOI:10.21873/invivo.12500
No comments:
Post a Comment