Clinical outcome after replacement of distal femur/ proximal tibia in a heterogeneous patient cohort: Function following tumour, trauma, and loosening

2Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

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 complications 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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Graulich, T., Kranz, C., Korallus, C., Oergel, M., Pacha, O. T., Omar, M., … Panzica, M. (2021). Clinical outcome after replacement of distal femur/ proximal tibia in a heterogeneous patient cohort: Function following tumour, trauma, and loosening. In Vivo, 35(4), 2275–2281. https://doi.org/10.21873/INVIVO.12500

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