Massive endoprostheses provide orthopaedic oncologists with many reconstructive options after tumor resection, although failure rates are high. Because the number of these procedures is limited, failure of these devices has not been studied or classified adequately. This investigation is a multicenter review of the use of segmental endoprostheses with a focus on the modes, frequency, and timing of failure. Retrospective reviews of the operative databases of five institutions identified 2174 skeletally mature patients who received a large endoprosthesis for tumor resection. Patients who had failure of the endoprosthesis were identified, and the etiology and timing of failure were noted. Similar failures were tabulated and classified on the basis of the risk of amputation and urgency of treatment. Statistical analysis was performed to identify dependent relationships among mode of failure, anatomic location, and failure timing. A literature review was performed, and similar analyses were done for these data. Five hundred and thirty-four failures were identified. Five modes of failure were identified and classified: soft-tissue failures (Type 1), aseptic loosening (Type 2), structural failures (Type 3), infection (Type 4), and tumor progression (Type 5). The most common mode of failure in this series was infection; in the literature, it was aseptic loosening. Statistical dependence was found between anatomic location and mode of failure and between mode of failure and time to failure. Significant differences were found in the incidence of failure mode Types 1, 2, 3, and 4 when polyaxial and uniaxial joints were compared. Significant dependence was also found between failure mode and anatomic location in the literature data. There are five primary modes of endoprosthetic failure, and their relative incidences are significantly different and dependent on anatomic location. Mode of failure and time to failure also show a significant dependence. Because of these relationships, cumulative reporting of segmental failures should be avoided because anatomy-specific trends will be missed. Endoprosthetic design improvements should address failure modes specific to the anatomic location. Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Purpose: To explore the effect of high-dose ifosfamide in first-line treatment for patients ≤ 40 years of age with nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity. Patients and Methods: From March 1997 to September 2000, 182 patients were evaluated. Primary treatment consisted of two blocks of high-dose ifosfamide (15 g/m²), methotrexate (12 g/m²), cisplatin (120 mg/m²), and doxorubicin (75 mg/m²). Postoperatively, patients received two cycles of doxorubicin (90 mg/m²), and three cycles each of high-dose ifosfamide, methotrexate, and cisplatin (120 to 150 mg/m²). Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support was mandatory after the high-dose ifosfamide/cisplatin/doxorubicin combination. Results: No disease progression was recorded during primary chemotherapy, 164 patients (92%) underwent limb-salvage surgery, four patients (2%) underwent rotation plasty, and 11 patients (6%) had limbs amputated. Three (1.6%) patients died as a result of treatment-related toxicity, and one died as a result of pulmonary embolism after pathologic fracture. Grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia followed 52% and 31% of all courses, respectively, and mild to severe nephrotoxicity was recorded in 19 patients (10%). The median received dose-intensity compared with protocol was 0.82. With a median follow-up of 55 months, the 5-year probability of event-free survival was 64% (95% CI, 57% to 71%) and overall survival was 77% (95% CI, 67% to 81%), whereas seven patients (4%) experienced local recurrence. Conclusion: The addition of high-dose ifosfamide to methotrexate, cisplatin, and doxorubicin in the preoperative phase is feasible, but with major renal and hematologic toxicities, and survival rates similar to those obtained with four-drug regimens using standard-dose ifosfamide. Italian Sarcoma Group/Scandinavian Sarcoma Group study I showed that in a multicenter setting, more than 90% of patients with osteosarcoma of the extremity can undergo conservative surgery.

PURPOSE: To provide an estimate of long-term prognosis for patients with osteosarcoma of the extremity treated in a single institution with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and observed for at least 10 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity were preoperatively treated with high-dose methotrexate, cisplatin, and doxorubicin (ADM). Postoperatively, good responders (90% or more tumor necrosis) received the same three drugs used before surgery, whereas poor responders (less than 90% tumor necrosis) received ifosfamide and etoposide in addition to those three drugs. RESULTS: For the 164 patients who entered the study between September 1986 and December 1989, surgery was a limb salvage in 136 cases (82%) and a good histologic response was observed in 117 patients (71%). At a follow-up ranging from 10 to 13 years (median, 11.5 years), 101 patients (61%) remained continuously free of disease, 61 relapsed, and two died of ADM-induced cardiotoxicity. There were no differences in prognosis between good and poor responding patients. ADM-induced cardiotoxicity (six patients), male infertility (10 of the 12 assessable patients), and second malignancies (seven patients) were the major complications of chemotherapy. Despite the large number of limb salvages performed, only four local recurrences (2.4%) were registered. CONCLUSION: With an aggressive neoadjuvant chemotherapy, it is possible to cure more than 60% of patients with nonmetastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity and amputation may be avoided in more than 80% of them. Because local or systemic relapses, myocardiopathies, and second malignancies are possible even 5 years or more after the beginning of treatment, a long-term follow-up is recommended for these patients.

Advanced Computerized Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) assist clinicians in their decision-making process, generating recommendations based on up-to-date scientific evidence. Although this technology has the potential to improve the quality of patient care, its mere provision does not guarantee uptake: even where CDSSs are available, clinicians often fail to adopt their recommendations. This study examines the barriers and facilitators to the uptake of an evidence-based CDSS as perceived by diverse health professionals in hospitals at different stages of CDSS adoption. Qualitative study conducted as part of a series of randomized controlled trials of CDSSs. The sample includes two hospitals using a CDSS and two hospitals that aim to adopt a CDSS in the future. We interviewed physicians, nurses, information technology staff, and members of the boards of directors (n = 30). We used a constant comparative approach to develop a framework for guiding implementation. We identified six clusters of experiences of, and attitudes towards CDSSs, which we label as “positions.” The six positions represent a gradient of acquisition of control over CDSSs (from low to high) and are characterized by different types of barriers to CDSS uptake. The most severe barriers (prevalent in the first positions) include clinicians’ perception that the CDSSs may reduce their professional autonomy or may be used against them in the event of medical-legal controversies. Moving towards the last positions, these barriers are substituted by technical and usability problems related to the technology interface. When all barriers are overcome, CDSSs are perceived as a working tool at the service of its users, integrating clinicians’ reasoning and fostering organizational learning. Barriers and facilitators to the use of CDSSs are dynamic and may exist prior to their introduction in clinical contexts; providing a static list of obstacles and facilitators, irrespective of the specific implementation phase and context, may not be sufficient or useful to facilitate uptake. Factors such as clinicians’ attitudes towards scientific evidences and guidelines, the quality of inter-disciplinary relationships, and an organizational ethos of transparency and accountability need to be considered when exploring the readiness of a hospital to adopt CDSSs.