• G M Calori, M Colombo, C Ripamonti, E Malagoli, E Mazza, P Fadigati, and M Bucci.
• Orthopaedic Institute, G. Pini, University of Milan, Italy. Electronic address: gmc@studiocalori.it.
• Injury. 2014 Feb 1; 45 (2): 388-93.

IntroductionThe development of new megaprosthesis for the treatment of large bone defects provides important options to orthopaedic oncologic surgeons for the replacement of skeletal segments, such as the long bones of the upper and lower limbs and the relative joints. We implanted megaprosthesis using either a one-step or two-step technique depending on the patient's condition. The aim of this study was to evaluate retrospectively both clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent lower limb megaprosthesis implant.Materials And MethodsA total of 32 patients were treated with mono- and bi-articular megaprosthesis subdivided as follows: proximal femur, distal femur, proximal tibia and total femur. The mean follow-up of patients was about 18 months (range 3 months to 5 years). Clinical and serial radiographic evaluations were conducted using standard methods (X-ray at 45 days, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months) and blood parameters of inflammation were monitored for at least 2 months.ResultsAlthough the mean length of follow-up was only 18 months, the first patients to enter the study were monitored for 5 years and showed encouraging clinical results, with good articulation of the segments, no somato-sensory or motor deficit and acceptable functional recovery. During surgery and, more importantly, in pre-operative planning, much attention should be given to the evaluation of the extensor apparatus, preserving it and, when necessary, reinforcing it with tendon substitutes.DiscussionMegaprosthesis in extreme cases of severe bone loss and prosthetic failure is a potential solution for the orthopaedic surgeon. In oncological surgery, the opportunity to restore functionality to the patient (although not ad integrum) is important for both the patient and the surgeon. The high mortality associated with cancer precludes long-term patient follow-up; therefore, there is a lack of certainty about the survival of this type of prosthesis and any medium- to long-term complications that may occur. Nevertheless, patients should be considered as an oncologic patient, not because of the disease, but because of the limited therapeutic options available.ConclusionsMegaprosthesis provides a valuable opportunity to restore functionality to patients with highly disabling diseases.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

36 keywords...

hide…