Intercalary reconstructions after bone tumor resections: a review of treatments.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] 9. Int Orthop. 2015 Oct;39(10):1981-7. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-2956-7. Epub 2015 Aug 26. Fractures in bone tumour prosthesis. Piccioli A(1), Rossi B(2), Sacchetti FM(3), Spinelli MS(4), Di Martino A(5). Author information: (1)Centro Oncologico di Palazzo Baleani, Azienda Policlinico Umberto I, Roma, Italy. piccioli.and@gmail.com. (2)Presidio Ospedaliero Gubbio Gualdo Tadino, ASL Umbria 1, Roma, Italy. (3)Ospedale Cristo Re, Roma, Italy. (4)Department of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Catholic University Hospital, Rome, Italy. (5)Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Rome, Italy. PURPOSE: The aim of the present narrative review is to report the different aspects related to the fractures around tumour prosthetic implants in terms of technical and medical issues. METHODS: A non systematic literature review on the topic was performed. RESULTS: Given the increased rate of limb salvage procedures and megaprostheses implanted for bone tumours, the increased number of osteoporotic periprosthetic fractures, and the burden of revision arthroplasty, the number of surgeries using endoprosthetic implants is likely to increase in the near future. Surgeons will face more frequently the complications related to tumour endoprosthetic implant. Endoprosthetic reconstruction has a higher risk of intra-operative and post-operative complications compared to conventional prosthetic replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Very rare reports and recommendations are available in literature regarding the treatment of periprosthetic fractures after megaprosthesis, and there is currently no consensus about which should be the standard management for periprosthetic fractures in this population of patients. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2956-7