Long-Term Follow-Up of Biological Reconstruction with Free Fibular Graft after Resection of Extremity Diaphyseal Bone Tumors

9Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and complications of reconstruction with a composite free fibula inside other biological grafts. We retrospectively reviewed 26 patients who underwent reconstruction after bone tumor resection of the diaphysis of the long bone. Surgical data, time to bony union, functional outcomes, and complications were evaluated in all cases. The median follow-up was 72.5 months. The limb salvage rate was 100%. Primary osseous union was achieved in 90.4% of the junctions. The union rates at the metaphyseal and diaphyseal junctions were 100% and 85.7%, respectively (p = 0.255). The mean time of bony union in the upper (87.5%) and lower (91.7%) extremity was 4.6 ± 1.6 months and 6.9 ± 2 months, respectively. The mean MSTS score was 27.2 ± 3.2, with a mean MSTS rating of 90.7%. Complications occurred in 15.4% of the cases. The administration of vascularized or non-vascularized grafts did not significantly influence the union time (p = 0.875), functional outcome (p = 0.501), or blood loss (p = 0.189), but showed differences in operation time (p = 0.012) in lower extremity reconstruction. A composite free fibula inside other biological grafts provides a reasonable and durable option for osseous oncologic reconstruction of the long bone diaphysis of the extremities with an acceptable rate of complications. A higher union rate was achieved after secondary bone grafting. In lower-extremity reconstruction, two plates may be considered a better option for internal fixation. Vascularizing the fibula did not significantly affect the union time.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Li, Z., Pan, Z., Guo, H., Fei, X., Cheng, D., & Yang, Q. (2022). Long-Term Follow-Up of Biological Reconstruction with Free Fibular Graft after Resection of Extremity Diaphyseal Bone Tumors. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237225

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free