UCLA

Background

Endoprosthetic reconstruction after oncologic resection of bone tumors requires stable fixation between the prosthesis and residual host bone. Compressive osseointegration has been developed as an alternative to traditional stemmed implants to address the challenges and complications of achieving this fixation. Sufficient time has now passed from the advent of compressive implants to allow for an assessment of the intermediate-term and long-term results of this form of fixation.

Questions/purposes

At a minimum follow-up of 10 years after implantation of a compressive osseointegration device for oncologic reconstruction: (1) What is the risk of periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, or implant breakage resulting in revision surgery for endoprosthesis removal? (2) What is the long-term cortical response at the host-endoprosthesis interface as visualized on plain radiographs?

Methods

A single-center, retrospective study was performed between 2002 and 2010, in which 110 patients with primary bone sarcoma of the proximal or distal femur were considered for oncologic resection and reconstruction. Patients were considered for a compressive osseointegration endoprosthesis if they were 50 years of age or younger, had not previously received femoral radiation, had no metabolic disease impairing bone healing, were not diagnosed with metastatic disease, and had life expectancy greater than six months. Of the 110 patients, 25 were treated with a compressive osseointegration implant of the proximal or distal femur, and 85 patients were treated with conventional stemmed implants or amputation because of older age, advanced disease, metabolic comorbidities, inability to tolerate a nonweightbearing postoperative period, or in the case of rotationplasty, patient preference. All patients who received this device during the period of study were considered eligible for inclusion in this review. The median (range) age was 18 years (7 to 50), and 13 of 25 patients were men. Five patients died of disease before the minimum follow-up duration of 10 years; two underwent amputation due to local recurrence and three died with the implant in situ, leaving 20 patients for complete analysis. Median follow-up was 144 months, and all 20 surviving patients had a minimum follow-up of 10 years (121 to 230 months). The primary endpoint was reoperation and implant removal for periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, or mechanical breakage of any component of the compressive device in the endoprosthesis. In final analysis, death was considered a competing event to revision surgery, and cumulative incidence was reported after competing-event analysis. A secondary aim was radiographic evaluation of the host-implant interface to assess the long-term cortical response to compressive osseointegration.

Results

Spindle fracture or loosening was noted in three patients, and the remaining 17 patients maintained the compression device until the final follow-up. The risk of reoperation for aseptic loosening, periprosthetic fracture, or mechanical breakage of the implant using a competing risks estimator was 12% at 10 years (95% CI 0% to 26%). These complications occurred within 29 months of the index surgery; no patients had implant loosening or mechanical breakdown after this initial period. On radiographic assessment, 14 patients demonstrated cortical hypertrophy of the bone-implant interface, six patients had maintenance of the native cortical contour, and no patients had cortical atrophy or narrowing at the implant interface.Conclusion Long-term follow-up in patients with compressive osseointegrative endoprosthetic devices demonstrated no late revisions because of periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, or implant breakage in this cohort with a minimum 10-year follow-up. There was no evidence of late-onset cortical atrophy or stress shielding at the host-implant interface. This study supports the long-term stability of the interface between host bone and the endoprosthesis in compressive osseointegration devices.

Level of evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.