Background: Endoprosthetic reconstruction of massive bone defects has become the reconstruction method of choice after limb-sparing resection of primary malignant tumors of the long bones. Given the improved survival rates of patients with extremity bone sarcomas, an increasing number of patients survive but have prosthetic complications over time. Several studies have reported on the outcome of first endoprosthetic complications. However, no comprehensive data, to our knowledge, are available on the likelihood of an additional complication and the associated risk factors, despite the impact of this issue on the affected patients. Questions/purposes: (1) What are the types and timing of complications and the implant survivorship free from revision after the first complication? (2) Does survivorship free from repeat revision for a second complication differ by anatomic sites? (3) Is the type of first complication associated with the risk or the type of a second complication? (4) Are patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors associated with a higher likelihood of repeat revision? Methods: Between 1993 and 2015, 817 patients underwent megaprosthetic reconstruction after resection of a tumor in the long bones with a single design of a megaprosthetic system. No other prosthetic system was used during the study period. Of those, 75% (616 of 817) had a bone sarcoma. Seventeen patients (3%) had a follow-up of less than 6 months, 4.5% (27 of 599) died with the implant intact before 6 months and 43% (260 of 599 patients) underwent revision. Forty-three percent of patients (260 of 599) experienced a first prosthetic complication during the follow-up period. Ten percent of patients (26 of 260) underwent amputation after the first complication and were excluded from further analysis. Second complications were classified using the classification of Henderson et al. to categorize surgical results. Briefly, this system categorizes complications as wound dehiscence (Type 1); aseptic loosening (Type 2); implant fractures or breakage and periprosthetic fracture (Type 3); infection (Type 4); and tumor progression (Type 5). Implant survival curves were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated with their respective 95% CIs in multivariate Cox regression models. Results: A second complication occurred in 49% of patients (115 of 234) after a median of 17 months (interquartile range [IQR] 5 to 48) after the surgery for the first complication. The time to complication did not differ between the first (median 16 months; IQR 5 to 57) and second complication (median 17 months; IQR 5 to 48; p = 0.976). The implant survivorship free from revision surgery for a second complication was 69% (95% CI 63 to 76) at 2 years and 46% (95% CI 38 to 53) at 5 years. The most common mode of second complication was infection 39% (45 of 115), followed by structural complications with 35% (40 of 115). Total bone and total knee reconstructions had a reduced survivorship free from revision surgery for a second complication at 5 years (HR 2.072 [95% CI 1.066 to 3.856]; p = 0.031) compared with single joint replacements. With the numbers we had, we could not show a difference between the survivorship free of revision for a second complication based on the type of the first complication (HR 0.74 [95% CI 0.215 to 2.546]; p = 0.535). We did not detect an association between total reconstruction length, patient BMI, and patient age and survivorship free from revision for a second complication. Patients had a higher risk of second complications after postoperative radiotherapy (HR 1.849 [95% CI 1.092 to 3.132]; p = 0.022) but not after preoperative radiotherapy (HR 1.174 [95% CI 0.505 to 2.728]; p = 0.709). Patients with diabetes at the time of initial surgery had a reduced survivorship free from revision for a second complication (HR 4.868 [95% CI 1.497 to 15.823]; p = 0.009). Conclusions: Patients who undergo revision to treat a first megaprosthetic complication must be counseled regarding the high risk of future complications. With second complications occurring relatively soon after the first revision, regular orthopaedic follow-up visits are advised. Preoperative rather than postoperative radiotherapy should be performed when possible. Future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of different approaches in treating complications considering implant survivorship free of revision for a second complication. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Megaprosthetic reconstruction of segmental bone defects following sarcoma resection is a frequently chosen surgical approach in orthopedic oncology. While the use of megaprostheses has gained popularity over the last decades and such implants are increasingly used for metastatic reconstructions and in non-tumor cases, there still is a high risk of long-term complications leading to revision surgery. This article investigates current implant survivorship, frequency and types of complications as well as functional outcomes of upper and lower limb megaprosthetic reconstructions.

Aims: Fungal prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are rare and account for about 1% of total PJIs. Our aim was to present clinical and microbiological results in treating these patients with a two-stage approach and antifungal spacers. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional database and identified 26 patients with positive fungal cultures and positive Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI who were treated between 2009 and 2017. We identified 18 patients with total hip arthroplasty (THA) and eight patients with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The surgical and antifungal treatment, clinical and demographic patient data, complications, relapses, and survival were recorded and analyzed. Results: The median follow-up was 33 months. The success rate was 38.5% (10/26). Fluconazole resistance was found in 15%. Bacterial co-infection was common in 44% of patients for THA and 66% of patients with TKA. Mortality, reoperations, and treatment failure were common complications. Conclusion: Treatment with a two-stage exchange is a possible option for treatment, although fungal infections have a high failure rate. Therapeutic factors for treatment success remain unclear. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:589–595.

Purpose: Megaprosthetic distal femoral reconstruction (DFR) is a limb‐salvage procedure to address bone loss following two‐stage revision for periprosthetic knee joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to analyze the survival of DFR compared to hinged total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It was hypothesized that DFR was associated with a poorer survival.Methods: In this retrospective single‐center study, 97 subjects who underwent two‐stage revision of chronic knee PJI were included. Among these, 41 were DFR. The diagnosis of PJI was established using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Implant survival was calculated using Kaplan–Meier method and compared with the log‐rank test as well as multivariate Cox regression at a minimum follow‐up period of 24 months.Results: The median follow‐up period was 59 (interquartile range (IQR) 45–78) months. Overall, 24% (23/97) of patients required revision surgery for infection. The infection‐free survival of rotating hinge revision TKA was 93% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 86–100%) at five years compared to 50% (95% CI 34–66%) for DFR. In multivariate analysis, the risk factors for reinfection were DFR reconstruction (HR 4.7 (95% CI 1–22), p = 0.048), length of megaprosthesis (HR 1.006 (95% CI 1.001–1.012), p = 0.032) and higher BMI (HR 1.066, 95% CI 1.018–1.116), p = 0.007). 10% (4/41) of patients undergoing DFR underwent amputation to treat recurrent infection. Conclusion: Megaprosthetic DFR as part of a two‐stage exchange for PJI is a salvage treatment that has a high risk for reinfection compared to non‐megaprosthetic TKA. Patients must therefore be counseled accordingly. Level of evidence: Retrospective observational study, Level IV.

Introduction: Two-stage revision is a frequently chosen approach to treat chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, management of recurrent infection after a two-stage exchange remains debated and the outcome of a repeat two-stage procedure is unclear. This study investigates the success rates of repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty and analyzes possible risk factors for failure. Materials and methods: We retrospectively identified 55 patients (23 hips, 32 knees) who were treated with repeat resection arthroplasty and planned delayed reimplantation for recurrent periprosthetic joint infection between 2010 and 2019 after a prior two-stage revision at the same institution. The minimum follow-up was 12 months with a median follow-up time of 34 months (IQR 22–51). The infection-free survival, associated revision surgeries, and potential risk factors for further revision were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and comparative non-parametric testing. Results: 78% (43/55) underwent reimplantation after a repeat implant removal. Of those who completed the second-stage surgery, 37% (16/43) underwent additional revision for infection and 14% (6/55) underwent amputation. The reinfection-free implant survivorship amounted to 77% (95% CI 64–89%) after 1 year and 38% (95% CI 18–57%) after 5 years. Patients with a higher comorbidity score were less likely to undergo second-stage reimplantation (median 5 vs. 3, p = 0.034). Furthermore, obese patients (p = 0.026, Fisher’s exact test) and diabetics (p < 0.001, log-rank test) had a higher risk for further infection. Most commonly cultures yielded polymicrobial growth at the repeat two-stage exchange (27%, 15/55) and at re-reinfection (32%, 9/28). Pathogen persistence was observed in 21% (6/28) of re-reinfected patients. Conclusion: The success rates after repeat two-stage exchange arthroplasty are low. Patients must be counseled accordingly and different modes of treatment should be considered.

Background: Limb lengthening with magnetically driven intramedullary lengthening nails is a fast-developing field and represents an alternative to external fixators. Although previous studies have assessed the application of magnetically driven intramedullary lengthening nails, these studies have been heterogenous regarding the nailing approach, the bone treated, and the implant type; they also have analyzed relatively small patient groups at short follow-up durations. Questions/purposes: (1) Is femoral lengthening with magnetically driven antegrade intramedullary lengthening nails accurate and precise? (2) What are the most common complications of treatment? (3) What factors are associated with unplanned additional surgery? Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the longitudinally maintained database of our orthopaedic teaching hospital to identify all patients who underwent surgery for leg length discrepancy (LLD) between October 2014 and April 2019. In total, we surgically treated 323 patients for LLD of 2 cm or more. Of those 55% (177 of 323) were treated with distraction osteogenesis with magnetically driven intramedullary lengthening nails, 18% (59 of 323) with external fixation, and 27% (87 of 323) with epiphysiodesis around the knee. Based on that, 29% (93 of 323) of patients underwent unilateral femoral distraction osteogenesis with magnetically driven antegrade femoral lengthening nails and were eligible for analysis. No patient was excluded, and 3% (3 of 93) were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 2 years, leaving 97% (90 of 93) for analysis. Patients with a distal femoral deformity were treated via a retrograde femoral approach (10% [33 of 323]) or with external fixators (3% [10 of 323]) and were not included in this study. Distraction osteogenesis with magnetically driven intramedullary lengthening nails was not considered for patients with deep tissue infection, those with bone dimensions considered to be too small in relation to the available implants, and for patients younger than 8 years. This study included 90 patients (44 females, 43 left femora) treated for a median (interquartile range) preoperative LLD of 39 mm (32 to 52) at a median age of 15 years (14 to 17). The same limb lengthening system was applied in all patients. The median (IQR) follow-up was 35 months (24 to 78). Data were acquired through a chart review performed by someone not involved in the surgical care of the included patients. Data acquisition was supervised and curated by two of the involved surgeons. Accuracy was calculated as 100 – [(achieved distraction in mm – planned distraction in mm) / (planned distraction in mm) x 100] and precision as 100 – (relative standard deviation of accuracy). Treatment-associated complications were summarized descriptively and characterized as complications resulting in unplanned additional surgery or those not resulting in unplanned surgery. To analyze the risk of unplanned additional surgery by entity, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) comparing the incidence of unplanned additional surgery in the different entity cohorts with the idiopathic LLD cohort as a reference. By calculating ORs, we analyzed the risk for unplanned additional surgery depending on sex, age, surgery time, and previous lengthening. Due to the lack of long-term evidence about motorized lengthening nails remaining in situ and concerns about potential implant-related adverse effects, removal was routinely scheduled 1 year after consolidation. For implant removal, 92% (83 of 90) of patients underwent planned additional surgery, which was not recorded as an adverse event of the treatment. Ninety-seven percent (87 of 90) of patients completed lengthening with the implant remaining in situ until the end of distraction. The median (IQR) distraction length was 37 mm (30 to 45) with a median distraction index of 0.9 mm/day (0.7 to 1.0) and median consolidation index of 31 days/cm (25 to 42). Results: The calculated accuracy and precision were 94% and 90%, respectively. In total, 76% (68 of 90) of our patients experienced complications, which resulted in 20% (18 of 90) of patients undergoing unplanned additional surgery. The most common complication overall was adjustment of the distraction rate in 27% (24 of 90) of patients (faster: 16% [14 of 90]; slower: 11% [10 of 90]) and temporary restriction of knee motion, which occurred in 20% (18 of 90) of our patients and resolved in all patients who experienced it. The most serious complications were bacterial osteomyelitis and knee subluxation, which occurred in 3% (3 of 90) and 1% (1 of 90) of our patients, respectively. With the numbers available, we found only one factor associated with an increased likelihood of unplanned additional surgery: Patients with postinfectious LLD had higher odds of unplanned additional surgery than patients with idiopathic LLD (7% [1 of 15] versus 50% [3 of 6], OR 14.0 [95% CI 1.06 to 185.49]; p = 0.02). However, we caution readers this finding is fragile, and the confidence interval suggests that the effect size estimate is likely to be imprecise. Conclusion: Femoral distraction osteogenesis with magnetically driven antegrade intramedullary lengthening nails appears to be an accurate and reliable treatment for femoral lengthening. However, depending on the etiology, a high risk of unplanned additional surgery should be anticipated, and a high proportion of patients will experience temporary joint stiffness. We recommend close orthopaedic follow-up and physiotherapy during treatment. This treatment of LLD can be considered alongside other nails, external fixators, and epiphysiodesis. Multicenter studies comparing this with other approaches are needed. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study.